rhp chris archer and ss hak-ju lee are top prospects going to tampa. but #cubs kept cashner,...

rhp chris archer and ss hak-ju lee are top prospects going to tampa. but #cubs kept cashner, colvin, castro, jackson, mcnutt

Heyman's twittter, updating the deal that netted CHC Garza.

over 1 year ago afh4 33 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

was just about to post this. I still think we should have been after Garza.

Moved from swan pool terrace (swan) to fresh restaurant (dolphin).

by westbrook on Jan 7, 2011 12:57 PM EST reply actions

Never woulda happened because we already traded Chris Archer.

by PBH on Jan 7, 2011 8:58 PM EST up reply actions

Not saying I don’t like the deal for the Rays, but I would caution against assuming you have enough pitching depth to make this kind of move.

by Roger Dorn on Jan 7, 2011 1:01 PM EST reply actions

I’m not sure that is the logic behind this for the Rays. I think they probably feel they need to strike it rich on another prospect or two, and need to add more prospect depth in the hopes of making that happen. I think it is actually a deal for quantity, in the hopes that some of that quantity turns into quality in the near future.

by APV on Jan 7, 2011 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

I guess being a Tribe fan has made me skeptical of this approach.

by Roger Dorn on Jan 7, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions

Don’t they need payroll space?

by xrickx on Jan 7, 2011 8:11 PM EST up reply actions

Nothing’s a sure thing. It’s a calculated risk. And I’m sure Friedman, along with myself and most others, thinks Hellickson will be better than Garza anyway.

LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.

by Joe. on Jan 8, 2011 12:14 PM EST up reply actions

I agree, but is the guy who will replace one of the injured Rays starters better than Garza? I think my point is that pitchers get hurt so much, it’s sometimes a bad decision to trade starting pitching depth.

by Roger Dorn on Jan 10, 2011 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

I thought they were assuming their window has closed already. I certainly assume that.

In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).

by V-Mart Shopper on Jan 8, 2011 10:12 PM EST up reply actions

In related news, the Cubs will continue to disappoint.

by emd2k3 on Jan 7, 2011 5:11 PM EST reply actions

In response to the Twitter question, there’s no way we get that package for Carmona.

LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.

by Joe. on Jan 8, 2011 12:13 PM EST reply actions

I haven’t read anything in this thread but everybody STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND LOOK AT MATT MOORE’S STATS

by Gradyforpresident on Jan 9, 2011 7:22 PM EST reply actions

i’m obsessed with him

by Gradyforpresident on Jan 9, 2011 7:23 PM EST up reply actions

or his game logs or whatever. omg luv

by Gradyforpresident on Jan 9, 2011 7:24 PM EST up reply actions

5 TD:10 INT… 2 lost fumbles… completion% in the fifties.

OHHHHHHHHHH…

2009!
98.5 QB rating with 8:2 and no lost fumbles. It must have been the concussions.

Moved from swan pool terrace (swan) to fresh restaurant (dolphin).

by westbrook on Jan 10, 2011 10:43 AM EST up reply actions

wow…those are some big numbers

by APV on Jan 10, 2011 10:59 AM EST up reply actions

I know you’re new here, but we don’t really do the ALL CAPS thing. It’s like you’re yelling at everyone.

by Jay on Jan 10, 2011 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs

I think Archer’s ascendancy as a prospect is an interesting story. I went back and looked at what I wrote at the time of the DeRosa deal, and two things stick out. While I thought all the prospects in the deal coming from Cleveland had interesting things going for them, I was more concerned about losing John Gaub (and his 37.5% K-rate…we didn’t have many of those guys back then) than Archer, and I was glad it was Archer and not his LC-rotation mate, Joey Mahalic. A 2009 season-ending injury and weak 2010 recovery later, Mahalic is a forgotten man in the Indians system and Archer is the Cubs top prospect. The two were both basically making their full season debuts at LC in 2008, Mahalic just two months older than Archer. Here is what the two did:

Archer: 115.1 IP, 16.1 BB%, 20.3 K%, 54 GB%, 4.29 ERA, 5.09 FIP
Mahalic: 101.0 IP, 7.1 BB%, 16.8 K%, 62 GB%, 4.19 ERA, 4.37 FIP

Archer was basically Trey Haley, while Mahalic showed above average control and well above average GB-rates. Archer had better raw stuff, but showed no ability to control it. Even in 2009, his first full season in the Cubs organization, Archer had a walk rate greater than 14%. But somehow he figured it out this past season. I don’t know whether to credit Archer, the Cubs organization, or luck for this…and while Archer is no sure thing, he is regarded as a quality prospect now. Which seems like another example of quantity turning into quality.

by APV on Jan 10, 2011 11:13 AM EST reply actions

You can ascribe this to "quantity turning into quality’ or luck or what have you. Me, I attribute it to scouting, pure and simple.

Our best players wear suits.

by mauichuck on Jan 10, 2011 9:32 PM EST up reply actions

It can’t just be scouting, because Archer was still largely unimpressive during his first season with the Cubs, and if he walked as many guys this year as he did last, he still would be forgettable.

by APV on Jan 10, 2011 10:05 PM EST up reply actions

In fairness, you’re basing this off numbers. I think Chuck is talking about the kind of scouting that only comes from actually watching the guy play.

Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?

by Turkmenbashi on Jan 11, 2011 1:05 AM EST up reply actions

I know what he means, but I have a hard time giving the Cubs the benefit of the doubt in terms of scouting when it was the Indians who acquired him first. Clearly both teams liked what they saw in Archer’s potential, but that potential didn’t take any form until 2010.

by APV on Jan 11, 2011 8:44 AM EST up reply actions

Well both teams could have still liked what they saw in Archer, but to grease the wheels on that trade going through the Indians allowed him to be included in the deal. The Indians can’t just give up players they think are going to turn out sucking in a few years.

by hans on Jan 11, 2011 1:34 PM EST up reply actions

One minor league season does not a career make. Good scouts – and coaches – know that it takes time to develop talent, but first you must have the talent. Scouts are paid to identify talent. The Cubs scouts, evidently, valued Archer’s talent more than the Indians scouts/management did. The Cleveland scouts and FO seem to have mis-calculated.

Our best players wear suits.

by mauichuck on Jan 11, 2011 11:25 PM EST up reply actions

How did they miscalculate? Chris Archer is not even in the majors. The player Chris Archer was dealt for was deemed worth Chris Perez just a few months later.

The Indians turned Chris Archer and floatsam into a guy who could currently yield, minimally, Chris Archer and some other interesting pieces. More likely he could yield two or three Chris Archers.

The Indians may have valued Archer’s talent more than the Cubs did. They just valued DeRosa more and they were right. They turned DeRosa into a much better minor leaguer almost immediately.

by afh4 on Jan 12, 2011 12:52 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah…it would take some dramatic developments for the Indians to lose this trade. Turning Archer, Gaub and Stevens into half a season of Derosa, Perez and Todd seems like a pretty easy win. Perez already is the reliever version of Archer’s high-end projection.

by APV on Jan 12, 2011 8:51 AM EST up reply actions

This!

Moved from swan pool terrace (swan) to fresh restaurant (dolphin).

by westbrook on Jan 12, 2011 6:33 PM EST up reply actions

This is a pretty dramatic overstatement, Chuck. Archer is considerably less accomplished than Adam Miller, and how many pennant races has he been contributing to?

At the time of the deal, Archer hadn’t even reached Kinston yet. Even now, he’s started 13 games at Double-A. That’s it, that’s his career as of now. Even if we assume his pitching ability will translate up to the majors, there’s a decent chance he’ll have a major arm injury in the next year or so.

But I suppose you’ll tell me that the Cubs — the Cubs! — have those awesome evaluators who know how to spot the guys who won’t have arm injuries. The Cubs!

My point is that ALL pitching prospects are subject to a huge risk factor that is part of figuring out how valuable they are. In Single-A, it’s hard to assign a guy any significant value at all, the risk is so high.

Anyway, you can look at the trade as our receiving DeRosa, who was a fine major league starter the following year at very reasonable cost. Or you can look at it as our receiving Chris Perez, who has started a very fine career as an Indian. DeRosa put up 2.1 WAR in 2009, and Perez put up 2.7 WAR in 2010.

Archer, in the meantime, is sitting on 0.0 WAR in the majors, 0 IP in Triple-A and 70 IP in Double-A. If the teams were reversed, I can only IMAGINE how you’d scorn anyone here who dared to declare the team who got Archer the winner.

by Jay on Jan 12, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions

Somewhere – I forget exactly – I read that you really can’t evaluate a trade until 3-5 years have passed. And you’re right, DeRosa was/is a decent major league player and Perez promises to be a plus reliever for sometime – barring an arm injury of course. But I’ve also read – again exactly where escapes me – that a great closer – like Dennis Eckersley great – isn’t as valuable as the Jake Westbrooks of the world. Now if Archer turns into Ice Box Chamberlin it would seem to me that the Cubs won that trade. We’ll see.

Our best players wear suits.

by mauichuck on Jan 12, 2011 9:50 PM EST up reply actions

Right now he is a AA pitcher with two good pitches and terrible control. I’m still feeling comfortable.

by APV on Jan 12, 2011 9:58 PM EST up reply actions

You can’t evaluate a trade for prospects for 3-4 years.

Chris Perez is not a prospect. Mark DeRosa is not a prospect.

Jake Westbrook has amassed 193 starts, 40 relief appearances and 12.8 WAR in his nice-but-unspectacular major league career. Until and unless Chris Archer reaches, say, 10% of those marks, I don’t see that there’s a conversation here.

Chris Perez has amassed 3.1 WAR so far. His 2.7 WAR from last season has been surpassed by Westbrook exactly twice in his career. Westbrook made 22+ starts with a 92+ ERA+ in four different seasons without reaching 2.7 WAR.

So you may have been a bit misinformed and/or Chris Perez had a 2010 season that he will have trouble duplicating.

by Jay on Jan 13, 2011 2:18 AM EST up reply actions

I realize that this was a bit confusing. It’s probably more clear to say:

Westbrook has made 22+ starts with an ERA+ of 92 or better six different times. In two of those seasons, he surpassed Chris Perez’s 2010 WAR of 2.7, but in the other four, he didn’t.

by Jay on Jan 13, 2011 2:19 AM EST up reply actions