Trading Bedard

[davearm]

Too bad the Cubs wouldn't give up Felix Pie for him, at least according to Dave.

The price is going up to acquire him. Would people really turn down 3 top prospects for him, most of whom are major league ready? I still think that would be very hard to do.

OK smart guy, go ahead and justify trading Felix Pie for Erik Bedard.

Keep in mind that the Cubs already have three lefties in their starting rotation. Adding a fourth would be a bit of overkill.

And of those three lefties, two are young, cheap, and providing terrific production (Hill 3.13 ERA; Marshall 2.44 ERA). The other is being paid $10M a year and is doing just fine (Lilly; 4.03 ERA).

Now the rest of the rotation consists of a guy being paid $7M a year to put up a 3.46 ERA (Marquis), and another guy named Carlos Zambrano, who you may have heard of.

So I'd first like to hear which of the 5 guys on the 4th ranked rotation in MLB (based on ERA) you're kicking to the curb to make room for Bedard. Marquis would be the most obvious choice, I suppose, since he's the de facto #5 guy. Except it'd be kinda stupid to take a guy that's making that kind of money, and doing his job just fine, and send him packing to long relief. Ask yourself if that's a choice you'd like to see the O's make.

Next I'd like to hear who you have playing CF for the next decade, after the Cubs have given away the most promising young position player in their entire system, who happens to play not only a critical position, but one that has nobody else on either the short- or long-term horizon.

Go ahead and put your Jim Hendry hat on, NoVaO, and explain to us all how Pie for Bedard makes any kind of sense from the Cubs' perspective.

Perhaps in the vaccuum you're living in it does, but here in the real world, it'd be idiotic.

[Baltimoron]

Thats one of the deals I had in mind or something similar. Kershaw is really far away though. I might prefer Billingsley.

LOL. You want talent, not closeness to major league contribution.

[Baltimoron]

Do you trade him for Loney, Kemp/LaRoche and Kershaw?

Of course and without a hint of hesitation, because this trade is insanely lopsided in the Os favor.

But there is no way EB nets anywhere near this.

[Baltimoron]

Thats one of the deals I had in mind or something similar. Kershaw is really far away though. I might prefer Billingsley.

I really wonder we could get from the Diamondbacks They have a log jam in both the OF and the corner IF spots. Jackson, Quentin, and Brett Anderson is something you have to consider. BTW, Anderson is a high school pitcher, but he will be a very fast rising one.

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=474463

The Mets could offer Milledge, Gomez, and Pelfrey or something similar.

They *could* but they won't because it would be a horrible trade for them.

Jackson, Quentin, Anderson is not on the same plane as Milledge, Gomez and Pelfrey, both of which are way below Loney, Kemp/Laroche and Kershaw.

[davearm]

LOL at all the dream weaving going on in this thread.

Loney, Kemp/LaRoche and Kershaw?

My goodness, get a clue people.

[NoVaO]

OK smart guy, go ahead and justify trading Felix Pie for Erik Bedard.

Keep in mind that the Cubs already have three lefties in their starting rotation. Adding a fourth would be a bit of overkill.

And of those three lefties, two are young, cheap, and providing terrific production (Hill 3.13 ERA; Marshall 2.44 ERA). The other is being paid $10M a year and is doing just fine (Lilly; 4.03 ERA).

Now the rest of the rotation consists of a guy being paid $7M a year to put up a 3.46 ERA (Marquis), and another guy named Carlos Zambrano, who you may have heard of.

So I'd first like to hear which of the 5 guys on the 4th ranked rotation in MLB (based on ERA) you're kicking to the curb to make room for Bedard. Marquis would be the most obvious choice, I suppose, since he's the de facto #5 guy. Except it'd be kinda stupid to take a guy that's making that kind of money, and doing his job just fine, and send him packing to long relief. Ask yourself if that's a choice you'd like to see the O's make.

Next I'd like to hear who you have playing CF for the next decade, after the Cubs have given away the most promising young position player in their entire system, who happens to play not only a critical position, but one that has nobody else on either the short- or long-term horizon.

Go ahead and put your Jim Hendry hat on, NoVaO, and explain to us all how Pie for Bedard makes any kind of sense from the Cubs' perspective.

Perhaps in the vaccuum you're living in it does, but here in the real world, it'd be idiotic.

LOL. Relax.

See, this argument I can get behind. You never mentioned why you wouldn't trade Pie. All you mentioned was this:

The Cubs are a team with all of that to offer in the majors and/or upper minors, and a GM that's in full-fledged win-now mode.

And then the argument went into a debate about whether the Cubs have enough to get Bedard. Based on your previous comments, I assumed you wouldn't include Pie because the Cubs wouldn't need to.

You never ended up answering the question, what you would give up for Bedard. And lets assume you actually have a big need for a starting pitcher. What would the Cubs offered? And would an offer of Pie, Murton, and Veal be better than what other teams have to offer? I would have to say no, based on what I think we could get for Bedard. I would say it is a competitive offer.

[NoVaO]

LOL. You want talent, not closeness to major league contribution.

I want both. Billingsley doesn't have talent?

[Say O!]

For the life of me, I just can't rationalize trading Bedard. The guy just keeps getting better and better, and is definitely on of the top 5 AL starters with Haren, Sabathia, Santana (the other spot is debatable b/w Lackey, Verlander, and when he isn't out with blisters, Beckett).

I just don't see the O's coming out on the winning end of this one. You can say mulder or colon all you want, but those pitchers were already on the decline. Bedard is still on the upswing. At the very least, why not keep waiting until his value reaches peak?

[davearm]

LOL. Relax.

See, this argument I can get behind. You never mentioned why you wouldn't trade Pie. All you mentioned was this:

And then the argument went into a debate about whether the Cubs have enough to get Bedard. Based on your previous comments, I assumed you wouldn't include Pie because the Cubs wouldn't need to.

You never ended up answering the question, what you would give up for Bedard. And lets assume you actually have a big need for a starting pitcher. What would the Cubs offered? And would an offer of Pie, Murton, and Veal be better than what other teams have to offer? I would have to say no, based on what I think we could get for Bedard. I would say it is a competitive offer.

My argument all along has been that the Cubs do indeed have plenty to get Bedard. They could overpay with anyone. I doubt you'd get another team to match an offer of Hill, Marshall, Veal, Pie, and Murton. There's no shortage of ammo, in other words.

My argument is also that the Cubs don't have nearly the same need as some other teams do (as outlined above), and therefore their willingness to pay is not nearly as high as some other teams' probably is.

I don't see the point in assuming that the Cubs actually have a big need for a starting pitcher. That's not the case. So the short answer to the question, "what you would give up for Bedard", is this: not as much as I'd anticipate other teams would. So why bother pissing people off with something that would look like a ridiculous lowball offer, but would actually realistically represent the value to the Cubs of the type of incremental upgrade Bedard would provide them.

Now having said all that, we can definitely get down to business if the O's want to help the Cubbies out by creating both $$$ and a spot for Bedard by taking back Jason Marquis. Something like Marquis + Murton + any two minor leaguers would have my full attention.

[mweb]

Do you trade him for Loney, Kemp/LaRoche and Kershaw?

Loney is now the starting 1st baseman for the Dodgers and has been tearing it up in limited action this year, I don't see him being traded.

[NoVaO]

My argument all along has been that the Cubs do indeed have plenty to get Bedard. They could overpay with anyone. I doubt you'd get another team to match an offer of Hill, Marshall, Veal, Pie, and Murton. There's no shortage of ammo, in other words.

My argument is also that the Cubs don't have nearly the same need as some other teams do (as outlined above), and therefore their willingness to pay is not nearly as high as some other teams' probably is.

I don't see the point in assuming that the Cubs actually have a big need for a starting pitcher. That's not the case. So the short answer to the question, "what you would give up for Bedard", is this: not as much as I'd anticipate other teams would. So why bother pissing people off with something that would look like a ridiculous lowball offer, but would actually realistically represent the value to the Cubs of the type of incremental upgrade Bedard would provide them.

Now having said all that, we can definitely get down to business if the O's want to help the Cubbies out by creating both $$$ and a spot for Bedard by taking back Jason Marquis. Something like Marquis + Murton + any two minor leaguers would have my full attention.

Ok, I see where you're going, but yeah that offer certainly doesn't get it done.

Now, in regards to Bedard's overall value, in the other thread I notice you mention Mulder as the comparison for Bedard. The only thing comparable each player's age and contract status.

Mulder was coming off his worst season. His K rate had fallen for the third straight year to below 6. His walk rate increased over 3.30 and his HR rate, in a pitchers park for Oakland was now 1.00. His H/9 had also increased for 4th straight year.

That is the exact opposite trend Bedard is heading. League leader strikeouts, top 10 command rate, etc. They don't compare as pitchers.

As for the prospects they received, Haren was the Cardinals top prospect in 2003. He pitched too many innings at the major league level to qualify for prospect status in 2004. The Cardinals top prospect in 2004 was Blake Hawksworth and he was #47 overall.

He also saw his stats take a jump at the AAA level in 2004 before being traded. You are probably looking at a top 50 prospect if he qualified. And apparently Barton was considered the key player in the deal. He was ranked #32 heading into the 2005 season. The Cards traded him after the 2004 season, which is what got him to #32.

While you call Calero just a generic reliever, his stats were damn good when he was traded.

So you have a very young top 35 prospect, an MLB ready pitcher who would be a top 50 prospect if he qualified as a prospect, and a very good reliever for a pitcher who was not nearly as good as Bedard is now.

Hudson was traded for a top-50 prospect, an MLB ready platoon OF, and a decent bullpen prospect.

Even Javier Vazquez got a top 25 prospect in Chris Young, a MLB starter in Hernandez, and a good reliever.

Beckett landed the Marlins the #30 and #40 prospects, as well as two pretty good reliever prospects in the lower levels and found a taker for Lowell's huge contract.

Trading Jeff Weaver back in the day, the Tigers landed Jeremy Bonderman in the middle of the season that elevated him to a top 20 prospect, a top 5 prospect in Carlos Pena, and another top 75 guy.

The Indians received top 10 prospect Brandon Phillips, Cliff Lee (who was in the middle of the season that elevated him to a top 30 prospect), Grady Sizemore (Expos #3 prospect) and a major league first baseman.

Sooooo, looking at what kind of pitcher Bedard is, I would agree Loney, Laroche/Kemp, and Kershaw/Billingsley is probably not realistic.

But Jackson, Quentin, and Anderson is certainly is fair.

Milledge, Gomez, Pelfrey probably wouldn't happen, but Milledge, Gomez, Robert Parnell, and Mike Carp is realistic.

[NoVaO]

They *could* but they won't because it would be a horrible trade for them.

Jackson, Quentin, Anderson is not on the same plane as Milledge, Gomez and Pelfrey, both of which are way below Loney, Kemp/Laroche and Kershaw.

I'm willing to concede that Loney, Kemp/Laroche, and Kershaw/Billingsley isn't realistic, and Milledge, Gomez, and Pelfrey probably wouldn't happen either.

However, based on what other teams got for similar pitchers, some of whom were less talented, Jackson, Quentin, and Anderson is a fair offer for Bedard.

And in place of Pelfrey, replace him with Robert Parnell (ranked in 10-20 range) and Mike Carp (#7) is also fair.

It really depends on how desperate teams get and what they are willing to give up. There is an asking price and if a team doesn't meet it, we can simply keep him. I don't think this team would have the balls to trade him anyway.

[mweb]

Sports writers/tv analysts have been saying they've been hearing that top MLB ready prospects are much less likely to be traded now as they're being valued much more. So lets factor that in when saying Bedard has more value than Mulder/Hudson/etc and should therefore get a better return.

[NoVaO]

Sports writers/tv analysts have been saying they've been hearing that top MLB ready prospects are much less likely to be traded now as they're being valued much more. So lets factor that in when saying Bedard has more value than Mulder/Hudson/etc and should therefore get a better return.

Those same writers and analysts are also saying pitching is going to be extremely hard to come by and that teams are going to have to pay to get it.

I personally think its a joke that Bedard would have less value than Mulder at this point. Mulder's peripherals were terrible and were heading in a downward direction.

[Sports Guy]

Sports writers/tv analysts have been saying they've been hearing that top MLB ready prospects are much less likely to be traded now as they're being valued much more. So lets factor that in when saying Bedard has more value than Mulder/Hudson/etc and should therefore get a better return.

Yea but the key part you are leaving out is that they are saying they don't want to trade the top prospects for rental players.

Bedard is a unique case.

Cheap, relatively young, top 10 starter who is under a team's control for 2.5 years.

That changes everything.