Potential Trading Partner: Chicago Cubs
Just what every blog needs in late July: another fan who thinks they could be a GM...
In trying to find potential trade partner for the Minnesota Twins, I started looking at the Cubs organization the other day. What I discovered is that they have several young, cheap players that could potentially fill some of the holes in the Twins lineup. Even better, these young, cheap players are actually sorta dispensable in the Cubs organization.
The first name is Matt Murton. I'm certainly not the first to suggest that Murton would be an excellent target for TR, but I have spent all summer (since the Cubs sent him down to AAA) telling anyone who'd listen that he'd be a perfect fit for the Twins. He's an athletic corner outfielder (one could even envision a player like him filling in at center, if need be), who has demonstrated good patience with solid power both in the minors and majors. Even better, the Cubs have publicly declared him trade bait, as he has been unable to squeeze into the Soriano/Pie/Floyd/Jones/Pagan outfield. Here's the lowdown on Murton: http://www.firstinning.com/players/Matt-Murton-a
The second target would be Mike Fontenot, who has played well in limited duty at second base this season. At 27, Fontenot is a little old to call a prospect, and he has lost a lot of playing time that past couple years to Ryan Theriot, who is a weaker hitter, but faster and can play shortstop. On the Cubs current roster, he is squeezed around Theriot and Mark DeRosa in the middle infield. For the Twins, he would represent a better bat than Castillo, as well as being far cheaper and younger. His addition would also allow us to delay handing the starting job to Alexi Casilla in 2008. Fontenot's stats are here: http://firstinning.com/players/Mike-Fontenot-a/
The final target is someone who was just called up the Cubs last week: Scott Moore. Moore actually is a legitimate prospect, a third baseman who is hammering AAA pitching at just 23. For the Cubs, he is trapped behind Aramis Ramirez, and can only hope to be used as a back up to Aramis and Derrek Lee in the near future. He's certainly a valuable commodity, but one would think given the Cubs roster, he's mostly valuable as trade bait. The upside for the Twins is obvious. He could be eased in as our starting third baseman, representing a huge step up from Punto and Brian Buscher. And, like Murton and Fontenot, he's cheap, and could wear a Twins uniform for a number of seasons. Here's his stats: http://firstinning.com/players/Scott-Moore-b/.
So, now that I've babbled on for far too long about three fairly random Cubs, here is the question I wanted to put out to fans in Twinkie Town. Could you envision a trade involving Joe Nathan for two or all three of these players? Trading Nathan would obviously be a dramatic blow to the bullpen, but we do have another relief ace in the pen. It would also give us a good corner outfield bat, an offensive upgrade at second once Castillo is gone, and a major boost at third base. It would also give us three major league ready position players - none of whom are terribly important to the Cubs long-term plan - who could all be starters for the Twins in 2008, 2009, and maybe even beyond. I think a move like this would be a major step forward for rebuilding our positional strength and providing depth to our lineup. It would also be a big step towards creating salary space for the upcoming contract talks with Torii, Johan, etc. I would love to hear what you think.
0 recs |
40 comments
Comments
Not Bad
As far as Nathan goes, the Cubs are trying to compete this year and they could always use a solid closer. Bob Howry and Ryan Dempster aren't what you would call "good options". I think Chicago would be interested, from their perspective. What doesn't make as much sense is what the Twins bullpen turns into this year. Neshek probably closes, then you're left with Guerrier and Reyes behind him, along with a struggling Juan Rincon. Not the strongest 'pen, especially if the Twins are still trying to contend this summer...which is another question altogether.
Murton, Fontenot and Moore...Murton and Moore I'm big fans of. Fontenot would be okay until Casilla is ready, and at the least could keep Casilla from starting 135 games at second base next year.
Good research in finding these guys, I'm just not sure A: that the Cubs would be willing to give up all three of these guys for one closer, even if it's one of the best closers in the game and B: that the Twins would be willing to take a chance on their bullpen at this point in the season. If we were to drop another three or four games in the standings in the next six days, the chances might be a bit better.
All the same, interesting proposition.
by Jesse on Jul 24, 2007 1:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not bad, But....
by spenny on Jul 24, 2007 10:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
I tried to weigh the idea of turning Nathan into one impact hitter versus two or three positional upgrades, and I think making a move to establish depth is more important. If we assume TR isn't going to dive too heavily into the FA market, there could be some pretty dramatic holes next season if Hunter and Castillo go elsewhere.
As far as whether the Twins would do this, I agree that there is just about no chance TR would make this move. I just like to dream a little...
by Bobomojo on Jul 24, 2007 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rincon for Moore?
by cmathewson on Jul 24, 2007 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This would be a no brainer...
by Bobomojo on Jul 24, 2007 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, that's backwards...
by Jesse on Jul 24, 2007 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rincon
by cmathewson on Jul 24, 2007 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed completely.
He's absolutely rushing his mechanics. He hasn't looked comfortable all season until after the ASB. Maybe he spent the break looking over film and breaking down his outings, because he is doing what a late reliever should be doing; throw, don't pitch. Challenge the hitter and mix it up.
by nathaneide on Jul 24, 2007 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my bad
wut do i look like a rocket surgeon?
by ravenfly on Jul 24, 2007 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nerds ruin baseball
No matter what happens, what the numbers say, it's still a game played by men. As such, the kinesiology of the athlete will always be the most important point in analyzing a player.
by nathaneide on Jul 25, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Nobody's trying to argue that observational analysis should be discounted in favor of stats. Because...dun dun dun...that would be retarded. Cmath's post up there is a great example of something that you can't pick up by looking at the numbers; I think we all agree on that front.
Especially in the minors and spring training. Though the numbers can certainly help point out things like "Kubel doesn't fare any worse against lefties despite Gardy's bull-headedness."
But your oft-repeated line about nerds ruining baseball? Okay. As long as we're being insulting, how about "obstinate luddites who refuse to use all the tools at their disposal to analyze the game ruin baseball"? If statistical analysis so abhorrent to you, head over to DTFC or the official Twins board. You can find plenty of unfounded "analysis" there.
by ravenfly on Jul 25, 2007 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
done
by nathaneide on Jul 25, 2007 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, come on
Billy Beane, one of the first GMs to seriously apply statistical analysis into his decision-making, was a former player. They're not mutually exclusive.
I am actually posting this from a basement, but it's my wife's basement, not my mother's.
by BeefMaster on Jul 25, 2007 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm posting
by montanatwinsfan on Jul 25, 2007 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Numbers and scouting
For example, Jason Bartlett is in the top five in the AL in line drive percentage despite having marginal numbers even at his position. Why? Because he's really good at squaring up on the ball, but he makes a lot of outs on lazy liners to right field. If those liners were lower to the ground, he'd be hitting well over .300 right now. He just needs to get a little more on top of those balls to be the .300 hitter everyone expects him to be. That means a slightly more level swing than he has right now to put some top spin on those liners.
by cmathewson on Jul 25, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With you completely
by Bobomojo on Jul 24, 2007 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rincon
by dwight zinfandel on Jul 24, 2007 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fontenot
by TheMattWilke on Jul 24, 2007 11:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Mike.....
Maybe it was a long time ago.
There was talk about a 2nd-base guy with a little punch.
by twintown on Jul 24, 2007 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a cure
by Bobomojo on Jul 24, 2007 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea
Of course, I have no idea what Casilla's development curve looks like these days. You have to assume that he's the long-term answer at 2B at some point, and that the front office has a plan for him.
Yet, even if Casilla is the 2B of 2008 and performs well, Fontenot would make a decent backup MI, no? That's got some value to it, especially since that slot is the laughable L-Rod right now.
by ravenfly on Jul 24, 2007 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think we need Fontenot either...
I'd prefer to not trade Nathan at this point, but if we had to, I'd probably do it for a Murton/Moore/prospect package. I'd just prefer to come up with something like a Rincon/Blackburn/Silva package, and bring Slowey up.
I'm actually in favor of trading Castillo now whether we're contending or not IF we can get a real 3b. I think Bartlett can handle leadoff duties, and I'd like to get Casilla some time up here ready for next year, probably almost platooning with Punto at 2b unless he emerges now. I just would like to get value for Castillo while we can.
No matter though, with this trade no doubt we'd have a LOT of money free next year with pretty much all holes filled. That'd be a good start. CF you would have the money to re-sign Hunter (I think you do anyway, but you DEFINITELY would with this) or get a very good replacement, plus a couple bench bats.
2007:
Bartlett-SS
Mauer-C
Cuddyer-RF
Morneau-1b
Hunter-CF
Kubel-LF/DH
Murton/White-DH/LF
Moore-3b
Punto/Casilla-2b
Bench: Punto, Redmond, White, Cirillo, Ford/Tyner
Santana, Garza, Boof, Baker, Slowey
Pen: Nathan, Neshek, Guerrier, Reyes, Ortiz, Cali
2008:
Bartlett-SS
Murton-DH/LF
Mauer-C
Cuddyer-RF
Morneau-1b
Hunter-CF
Kubel-LF/DH
Moore-3b
Casilla-2b
Bench: Redmond, Punto, Buscher, MacDonald, Ford/Tyner
Santana, Garza, Liriano, 2 of Baker/Boof/Perkins/Slowey
Pen: Nathan, Neshek, Guerrier, Reyes, 2 of Baker/Boof/Perkins/Slowey
by djskilbr on Jul 24, 2007 2:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Disagree about your disagree
If anyone is to be traded it should be out of the rotation where the most depth is had in not only the major league level but also the minor league level.AAA has a solid staff and New Britian is not far behind since Swarzak has returned from his suspension
by spenny on Jul 24, 2007 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think we actually agree
I love Nathan. I would hate to see him leave Minnesota, especially when he would be so cheap next season. However, his skill and price tag make him extremely valuable, and the presence of other quality pitching in our bullpen makes losing him bearable. I'm not saying losing Nathan is ideal - it will certainly make our bullpen weaker. However going into next year, the prospect of a Nathan-less bullpen is better (in my opinion) than a lineup featuring Casilla/Punto, Tyner/Ford/White, Cirillo/Punto, Span, etc...
Is there a way to acquire 2-3 cheap, major league ready bats without trading away Nathan? Maybe. Hunter could get us one or two. Some of our quality starting pitching prospects could yield a return. Are these better options? Maybe. But lets remember that there is perhaps nothing more valuable right now (in light of the crazy free agent market) than cheap, major league ready bats. They're not going to come cheap.
by Bobomojo on Jul 25, 2007 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something
I do not really want to trade Nathan this year at all.
by AdamOnFirst on Jul 25, 2007 12:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Twins Trades
Speculating on trades, i.e., playing 'Fantasy GM,' is generally a waste of time, and even more so with regard to the Twins, as Terry Ryan is a wimp who's afraid of his own shadow when it comes to making bold moves (and often, just making the right move), just as Gardy is a wuss coddles his players endlessly and will not say a discouraging word in public. Compare these to, say, the Tigers' GM and Manager, and you see why the Twins will never get beyond the first round of the playoffs under the current regime. Such a shame for a team with 2.5 (Mauer isn't quite in the Morneau/santana category) of the top 25 or so players in the league.
by hoskins powell on Jul 25, 2007 1:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Counter-reality
Beyond that, though, it's not necessarily the case that Ryan is averse to bold moves - I think the Matt Lawton trade in '01 was pretty darned bold (trading one of the team's best and most well-known players), as were the Eric Milton, AJ Pierzynski, and Shannon Stewart trades, all of which either traded or brought in a reasonably prominent player.
Moreover, the "they'll never win a playoff series!" talk is rather silly, as they already have won a playoff series. Granted, it was five years ago now, but it was the same GM and manager that you're bemoaning the effectiveness of, so it's obviously not the case that they can't do it.
Since when is Gardy known for coddling his players, by the way? I'd agree that he plays favorites to some extent (Punto, Tyner, etc., while refusing to commit to Kubel and Cuddyer), but one of the main stories last year was how Morneau took off after a scathing talk with Gardy. I guess he usually isn't too vicious with players in the press, but I don't see how doing so would be a virtue. Bobby Cox and Joe Torre don't do that, either... are they wusses?
by BeefMaster on Jul 25, 2007 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cubs fan here
- Murton can not play center. He can't play right, and struggles in left. He has a great eye at the plate, and a nice level swing. He's more of a doubles hitter than a home run threat at this point, so far now he is an up the middle bat who can only play in the corners. He was sent down earlier this year to AAA and has been playing pretty well. He could make some serious improvements if given a chance to play regularly. He's a good trade candidate in that he can only play left, and we have a billion dollars tied up in left until 2015. But the Cubs have never publically made him available, that is false.
- Scott Moore also has no future with the Cubs, given who blocks him. He'd be a good target.
- Mike Fontenot is a great sell-high candidate for the Cubs, but Hendry doesn't trade high. He's trying to dump Izturis, Jones and Eyre at rock-bottom value, rather than recognizing that Fontenot is playing way over his head given his age and minor league stats and getting something useful for him. He's a high energy guy but he's definitely not this good.
by jazzypete on Jul 25, 2007 3:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks jazzypete...
Would be curious to know from a Cubs fan.
by djskilbr on Jul 25, 2007 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
longterm key?
by ravenfly on Jul 25, 2007 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so...
by djskilbr on Jul 26, 2007 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not hatin'
If some GM wanted him as part of a trade package that was otherwise favorable, I wouldn't put him in the "out of the question" category is all.
by ravenfly on Jul 26, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you trade him though...
by djskilbr on Jul 26, 2007 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
LaRoche and Wigginton would do. If we traded Hunter, Milledge, LaRoche and Wigginton would do.
by cmathewson on Jul 26, 2007 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
Seems like simple math to me.
by djskilbr on Jul 26, 2007 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure...
Maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong. Keeping Hunter and adding two bats without giving up much would make us an awfully good team next year. Let's just not talk about year five or six of Hunter's contract.
by Bobomojo on Jul 26, 2007 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not just Rincon and Castillo
by cmathewson on Jul 26, 2007 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep...
And we can afford to trade 1-2 pitching prospects from Baker/Slowey/Perkins/Duensing/Blackburn/Mullens. That won't leave us in the lurch one bit.
by djskilbr on Jul 26, 2007 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info...
I love hearing your insights - you certainly know far better that I how these players are viewed in the Cubs organization. I especially like the comments on Murton - I saw him play a couple times on WGN earlier this year, and thought he looked athletic enough to be a fill-in CF. Guess I was way off base.
As far as the Cubs saying Murton was available, I was referring to this, posted back in May on Baseball Prospectus: "The Chicago Cubs desperately need bullpen help, and reportedly would part with outfielder Matt Murton in the right deal"
(source: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6251)
If this report was way off base, my apologies for quoting it.
I, too, would be fascinated on what you think the Twins would need to offer to get these players. I'm also wondering if you know anything about Scott Moore's defensive abilities. Again, your insight is greatly appreciated.
by Bobomojo on Jul 25, 2007 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Replying to my own post...I just can't shut up
Two Trades:
Nathan (+ some other pieces... minor league help, some other piece that's not in the picture for 2008) to the Cubs for Murton, Fontenot, and Moore. This trade is highly unlikely...TR won't trade Nathan, and I don't think that the Cubs would part with three ML-ready position players. But, being a nerd, I'm gonna live in fantasy land for a minute.
Hunter to the Yankees for Melky Cabrera and one or two of their great pitching prospects (Joba Chamberlain and Ian Kennedy would be ideal).
Castillo to...someone. For bullpen depth.
2008 Minnesota Twins (before free agency)
C: Mauer (L)/Redmond (R)
1B: Morneau (L)
2B: Fontenot (L)/Casilla (S)
SS: Bartlett (R)
3B: Moore (L)/Buscher (L)
LF: Murton (R)/Kubel (L)
CF: Cabrera (S)/Span (L)
RF: Cuddyer (R)
Others, depending on contract status: Punto, Tyner, Ford, MacDonald, Jones
Rotation: 5 of the following: Santana, Garza, Liriano, Baker, Boof, Perkins, Slowey, NYY Prospect
Bullpen: A little hard to say...obviously Neshek, Guerrier, and Reyes. I'm not too sure on the contract status of others. The Castillo trade could help solidify this.
As I point out, this is the team we have before entering free agency. The obvious holes are right handed bats and bullpen uncertainty. The good thing is that we have opened up a ton of payroll (a very good thing considering the amount of money that will soon be owed the best pitcher in baseball) and that our holes are certainly addressable. By securing a talented player for each position, we've left ourselves some flexibility in finding a right handed bat. We could really take our pick of hitters (in our price range) and know that we can fit them into the line-up. In addition, we've further solidified our collection of quality starting pitching prospects.
OK, that's it. Another dude just wasting his time making up trades that'll never happen.
by Bobomojo on Jul 26, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 














