Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Is FSU Really The ACC's Most Valuable Team?

SB Nation Fake Trades

Fake Trades: Bryce Harper To The Cubs?

In the first installment of the Fake Trades series, we attempt to speed along a win-now strategy and help a rebuilding process at the same time.

Dec 29, 2011 - Thirty-six years ago, one of the best baseball sites on the internet was MLB Talk. Well, 36 years ago in internet time. In earth orbits, it was closer to a decade ago. But the site introduced me to some fantastic baseball writers, like Dayn Perry and John Brattain. It was the first place I'd stop every morning.

One of the site's most popular features was the Mock Stove League, where writers would come up with their own fake trades, and commenters would abuse them for being stupid and biased and stupid. The best part was that the writers were almost always accused of robbing both teams. If at this point, you'd like to stop reading this and cull through those Mock-Stove archives, you'd be right to do so.

Even better was when they gave the keys to the readers:

Screen_shot_2011-12-29_at_8
Screen_shot_2011-12-29_at_8
Screen_shot_2011-12-29_at_8

So beautiful.

The format always led to criticism and internet chest-puffing, but it was never dull. Even when some poor, delusional reader would come up with a Travis Lee-for-Manny Ramirez deal, it was always fun to read their explanations. So I thought I would steal pay homage to the idea for Baseball Nation.

Sadly, the idea first popped into my head thinking about how the Nationals could trade for Marlon Byrd, which is a subject so boring that Marlon Byrd wouldn't even read the article. It's a practical trade, and it would make sense for both sides. But it's boring. No, that's a subject for the Fake Boring Trades series that I'll start next week.

But maybe there's a way to spice this thing up. Byrd to the Nats makes too much sense, especially if the Nats are thinking about winning now. But there's no such thing as a partial win-now strategy. It's like being somewhat pregnant, or a mostly annoying Red Sox fan. I mean, if the Nationals are trying to win now, are they really going to count on a teenager to bolster their lineup? No, that just won't do.

Nationals trade:
Bryce Harper
Adam LaRoche

Cubs trade:
Starlin Castro
Matt Garza
Marlon Byrd

Castro is under contract through 2016, so it's not as if the Nationals would purely do this out of short-term thinking. But past that, Garza is around for two more seasons, which would give the Nationals at least two shots with a pitching quartet that would rank among the best in the game. Byrd is a free agent after this season, but he'd upgrade the Nats' roster while relieving them of the peyote-inspired notion that Jayson Werth can play center field.

With the Cubs taking on LaRoche's salary, the Nationals are free to pursue yet another win-now piece, whether it's Prince Fielder or Casey Kotchman. They could also use Ian Desmond as a trade piece for an upgrade.

The Cubs would be putting a lot of eggs into one hyper-confident basket, but it's hard to imagine a prospect who's a surer bet than Harper. They can futz around with B+ prospects for Garza or C prospects for Byrd, or they can get one super-prospect for the lot of them. If there's one lesson to be learned from those old Mock Stove Leagues, it's that the prospect world is even more filled with Chad Hermansens and Paxton Crawfords than you might think.

The odds are somewhat against the Cubs getting a prospect back in a Garza trade who turns into a regular. But with Harper, they'd get the closest thing to a star that the prospect world has seen since a teenaged Alex Rodriguez. They weren't especially interested in Albert Pujols.

The biggest sticking point -- other than the whole idea being ludicrous -- would be Starlin Castro's ability to stick at short. The Nationals are set at second with Danny Espinosa, so if they're going to have Castro around for a few years, they'd have to believe he could at least fake a decent shortstop for most of them.

See? Nothing that anyone can possibly argue with. Just a completely fair and reasonable trade for both sides. I probably should have picked something that would have irritated people instead of something so realistic and practical. Maybe I'll have better luck with the next one.

Do you like this post?

Grant_brisbee_medium

Grant Brisbee

Editor

Grant Brisbee has been the lead writer for McCovey Chronicles since 2005, when the San Francisco Giants-themed site became the second blog on the SB Nation network. He graduated from San Jose State... Read full bio


Comments

Display:

Why is everyone so in love with Starlin Castro?

He doesn’t walk, he doesn’t play good defense and he doesn’t hit for power. And this guy is the centerpiece of your Bryce Harper trade?!

by Sam Godford on Dec 29, 2011 1:34 PM EST reply actions  

He's expected to improve as a hitter

The general expectation is that he’ll be able to develop into an impact hitter as he fills out. And he’s 21.

Newsdesk contributor to SB Nation Midwest. Baseball writer for Beyond the Box Score and MLB Daily Dish.

I'm one of those Twitter persons, too.

by Satchel Price on Dec 29, 2011 1:39 PM EST up reply actions  

If playing Werth in center is that dumb

And it sure sounds like it is, why wouldn’t they at least consider giving Harper a shot there, at least in the minors? If he’s as athletic as they say he is, seems like he’d have a non-zero chance of being average there, and a CFer with his batting potential would be obscenely valuable.

by jsantoro12 on Dec 29, 2011 1:49 PM EST reply actions  

As a completly annoying Sox fan:

“or an mostly annoying Red Sox fan”

It’s ‘A’, not ‘an’…unless you have some weird accent I’m unaware of.

by Dale Sams on Dec 29, 2011 1:54 PM EST reply actions  

Er.

It’s a California thing. Yeah.

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 29, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I guess I can't use my slogan of

“Over The Monster: Where Mostly Annoying Red Sox Fans Talk Down To Completely Annoying Ones” anymore.

by Marc Normandin on Dec 30, 2011 8:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Speaking as a Cub fan

I’d be sad to see Castro go, as he’s the first position player they’ve had that I’ve been really excited to watch play in a long time. But if the question is “Would you trade Castro for Harper straight up?” I’m pretty sure I’d answer yes.

That said, I don’t think the Cubs get back as much value in this trade as they’re giving up. Byrd and LaRoche are a wash. But I feel Garza + Castro > Harper. So let’s throw in a reasonably good pitching prospect please. Alex Meyer maybe? Either that, or get a third team involved.

by chapman_123 on Dec 29, 2011 2:12 PM EST reply actions  

Think you’re overvaluing Castro quite a bit.

by Nikk.m on Dec 29, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions   3 recs

No

Thats perfectly right…they’re basically giving up 2 years of guaranteed service by getting a player like Castro and giving up Harper. Castro is very good, but Harper is a generational talent, so they shouldn’t be tossing in first-round picks for the Cubs too.

by NastyNate82 on Dec 29, 2011 7:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I’ll believe Harper is a “generational talent” once he demonstrates it at the Major League level. Until then, he’s just a prospect. A very good prospect, mind you. But Castro has already shown he can hit in the Majors. Those two years of spent service time mean the Nats reap the benefit of improved performance. Castro is “proven”, as it were.

As I said, I think Harper is worth more than Castro straight up. Which brings us to Garza. Here’s where leverage matters. The Cubs have more of it. The Nats are trying to win now. That makes the players they get from the Cubs more valuable. Garza is under team control for two more years, and he’s an outstanding pitcher. The notion that Garza (who might put up a Cy Young caliber season) and Castro (who should compete for the best offensive season by a shortstop in the NL) would together only be worth Harper — a second-year minor leaguer — well, it doesn’t add up.

Or to put it another way, I think the Cubs can get more total value by trading Garza alone than Harper gives them in exchange for Garza and Castro.

by chapman_123 on Dec 29, 2011 7:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Except that in a year, once Rendon is in the majors, it’s entirely possible that Castro wouldn’t even be a starter for the Nats. Espinosa was better than Castro last year, and most likely would be a better defensive SS as well.

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Dec 29, 2011 7:58 PM EST up reply actions  

What? I’ll grant that Espinosa is better defensively than Castro, but offensively? By what metric was Espinosa a better hitter than Castro in 2011?

As for Rendon, he has yet to play a game as a professional, so you’ll forgive me if I’m not prepared to concede him a spot in the Nationals’ 2013 lineup.

by chapman_123 on Dec 29, 2011 9:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Well

if you’re taking the total package (offensive and defensive) its closer than one might think. His ISO is higher (178 to 125), his OBP is only 18 points lower than Castro’s (Espinosa’s was boosted by getting plunked 19 times) and his SLG is only a little higher than Espinosa’s too. So even though Castro’s average and BABIP is a lot gaudier, the gap isn’t as wide as it might seem at first.
To me, this all doesn’t matter. Espinosa seems like a good player, although his talents aren’t as readily apparent as Castro’s. Either way…I’d take Castro in a heartbeat. He’s three years younger and although he hasn’t played great defense at SS, its not a foregone conclusion that he’ll get progressively worse, which many people seem to believe.

by NastyNate82 on Dec 29, 2011 10:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Once he demonstrates that he's a

generational talent (which he’s widely described as) at the MLB level, you ain’t gonna get him. Because then he’s too valuable for them to give up. Thats the whole point of the prospects for players trade

by NastyNate82 on Dec 29, 2011 10:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm sorry

I’m making this sound too much like a foregone conclusion…“if” he demonstrates that he’s a generational talent…

by NastyNate82 on Dec 29, 2011 10:07 PM EST up reply actions  

No

just no. It would take a top of the line CF(I hear that guy in Pittsburgh is good), and a good group of prospects to get the nats to consider trading Harp

MOAR SEVERINO!

by jeff550 on Dec 29, 2011 3:03 PM EST reply actions  

I've got a better one than that.

With all this Fielder talk, as a Nat’s fan I’d rather they offer Harper to the Angels for Mark Trumbo, Peter Burgous and solid middle reliever. They lose their top prospect but fill three huge holes and don’t have another dumb contract (Werth/Fielder) to pay. That’s the only way you even think about trading Harper.

by MDGeeMan on Dec 29, 2011 3:30 PM EST reply actions  

The Angels would take that deal in a heartbeat.

by chapman_123 on Dec 29, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

bleah

While Bourgos is a nice chip, Trumbo’s overrated (.298 OBP), and this is the first i’ve heard of a “huge hole” in middle relief.

I feel the same way about the Cubs deal. You’re trading a consensus future All-Star for a poor-fielding SS, a one-year CF (thus needing you to revisit next year) and a SP they don’t need.

And this is the first time I can recall “win-now” and “Casey Kotchman” in the same sentence without the word “not” also involved.

Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"

by jbg2772 on Dec 29, 2011 4:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

There’s no centerpiece. You don’t give up the top prospect in baseball for a few also-rans just to fill holes. Fielder > Trumbo by several WAR.

Any trade of Harper needs to start with another team’s top prospect. In the case of the Angels, I’m thinking a package to get the Nats’ attention looks more like Trout + Trumbo + Something Else.

Rooting for lovable losers since 1984.

by seattlecougar on Dec 29, 2011 4:43 PM EST up reply actions  

By all means, ask for Trout, but don’t expect to get anything else in the deal. Trout and Harper are on the same plane, except that Trout can play in the majors now, and Harper is probably not ready. You think you’re going to get Trout AND two other young players? Preposterous.

Honestly, guys, we’re talking about a 19-year-old that hasn’t proven anything. You’re not trading Albert Pujols in his prime. And while he had a nice season in the minors, he didn’t exactly make a seamless transition to AA. He’s not setting minor league records.

by chapman_123 on Dec 29, 2011 4:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Harper is every bit as MLB ready as Trout who didn’t exactly light up the AFL.

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Dec 29, 2011 8:00 PM EST up reply actions  

There’s a consensus that Trout was exhausted by the time he got to the AFL.

I think Harper needs another year. At the very least, he needs to prove he can produce at AAA (where he has yet to play).

by chapman_123 on Dec 29, 2011 9:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed on both counts

with Trout and Harper…Trout ended up playing longer than most MLB players did, at least in terms of months. That would tucker anyone out.

by NastyNate82 on Dec 29, 2011 10:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Completely agree..especially about seasoning

It makes me SMH repeatedly when I hear about the possibility of him starting in the majors when he is:
Yet to master AA
Yet to play AAA
Going to become arbitration eligible 2 year earlier
Going to become a free agen at age (I believe) 26 instead of 27 (which means we would have him for half a season while he is developing instead of a full year in his PRIME). I would put that up there with the Werth contract for the stupidest things that my 19 year old (same age as Harper…just not as good a baseball player) eyes have ever seen.

by NatsFan18 on Dec 31, 2011 6:33 PM EST up reply actions  

*arb eligible 1 year earlier..i was thinking of super 2 when i combined the terms there

by NatsFan18 on Dec 31, 2011 6:34 PM EST up reply actions  

I think they’d have to do better than Cobb…

"Don't you think it's strange that you'll make more money than President Hoover this year?"
"Why not? I had a better year than he did." - G.H. Ruth

Posting pictures

by Andrew GM on Dec 30, 2011 12:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Naaah

My d***ie is leaking!

by SRQman on Dec 30, 2011 1:09 AM EST up reply actions  

This trade ignores the existence of Anthony Rendon

Who will most likely be moved to second, moving Espinosa to short, which kinda makes Castro worthless.

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Dec 29, 2011 7:54 PM EST reply actions  

Who? Oh, you mean the guy who was drafted this year, has yet to play one inning in a professional game? Yeah, he’s guaranteed to be a star.

/s

by Phrozen on Dec 29, 2011 11:14 PM EST up reply actions  

I did forget about Rendon...

But I think it’s more likely that he moves from third to first/left than third to second. Third to second is a tough move.

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 30, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Sorry To Sound Like "That Fan"

…..but I wouldn’t trade Harper for the entire Cubs organization. DC Fans would march down South Capitol Street and burn down Nats Park if Rizzo made a silly trade such as this. Could Harper eventually prove to be a bust? Sure. Has he proven anything at the MLB level? No. But you do not trade away a talent such as Harper for what this article suggests. If the roles were reversed, I’m sure Cubs fans would not trade him to the Nats for anything equivalent to what is suggested in this article. I like the “what if” games, but this one is truly ridiculous.

by sullyzz on Dec 30, 2011 8:36 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Yahoo_full_count Yahoo_fantasy_baseball

Anaheim, CA, USA; Los Angeles Angels first baseman Mark Trumbo celebrates after hitting a home run against the Toronto Blue Jays at Angel Stadium of Anaheim.  The Angels won 6-2. Credit: Kelvin Kuo-US PRESSWIRE

The Angel Who's Improved

Los Angeles, CA, USA; Los Angeles Dodgers catcher A.J. Ellis gets brushed back by a pitch as Colorado Rockies catcher Ramon Hernandez catches the ball at Dodger Stadium. Dodgers won 11-4. Credit: Jayne Kamin-Oncea-US PRESSWIRE

A Decade Of Patience, Patience

CHICAGO, IL: Danny Duffy #23 of the Kansas City Royals leaves the game against the Chicago White Sox in the first inning with an injury at U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago, Illinois.  (Photo by David Banks/Getty Images)

The Royals And Pitcher Development