Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Bruce Levine of ESPN1000 is reporting that the Cubs have traded Mark DeRosa and the $5.5M on his contract for 2009 to the Cleveland Indians for three minor-leaguers, RHP Jeff Stevens, LHP John Gaub and RHP Chris Archer.
You have to think a trade, let's say for a certain pitcher from San Diego whom I dare not speak his name, is possibly forthcoming.
I'll try and get some info on the prospects in a bit.
UPDATE #1: Link from espn.com, although I think they have a typo on John "Caub".
UPDATE #2: I poked around a bit and none of the three prospects showed up on Baseball America's recent top 10 Indians' prospect list or John Sickels Top 20. In other words, this deal only makes sense if they're all headed to another city, let's call it San Diego, to give them the quantity of pitchers and players that they wanted in that trade for that certain pitcher, whom we'll refer to as J.P.
Scouting reports and biographies that I could piece together on the prospects after the jump....
Jeff Stevens was drafted in the 6th round by the Cincinnati Reds in 2005 out of Loyola Marymount University. A year later he was traded to the Indians as part of the Brandon Phillips trade. He pitched for Team USA in the 2008 Olympics as well. He features a 92-93 mph fastball that can get up to 95mph, an above-average curve and has been working on a slider. He spent most of the 2008 season closing for the Indians Triple-A affiliate in Buffalo. The 25-year old is certainly the best of the three players the Cubs are getting back.
23-year old John Gaub was a 21st round selection by the Indians in 2006 out of the University of Minnesota and had an incredible 14.06 K/9 rate in A-ball last year, even if he was a bit old for the league. He was considered a flamethrower in college, but had his shoulder scoped after his sophomore year which in turn resulted in a loss in velocity. He seems to be getting it back up to the mid 90's on occasion but usually settles in the low 90's with a decent slider and a change-up as well.
20-year old Chris Archer was a teammate of John Gaub at Lake County last season and although he had a healthy 8.27 K/9 rate last season, he walked an incredible 84 batters in 115.1 IP. The 5th-round pick out of high school in 2006 throws in the low 90's with a "plus slider" and scouts think he has the frame to build on that velocity.
Recent comments
-
crunch 1 hour 53 min ago (view)
semi-interesting winter league note...
trey mcnutt (yes, that guy) is having a hell of a winter league in mexico (one of the less talented winter leagues) so far as a closer. 15.2ip 8h 4bb 24k, 0.57 era.
giants signed him to a minor league deal a couple weeks ago. he never went anywhere. he's been consistently playing ball in the minors and indie league ball since he was last a noteworthy player. last season he played in the OAK minor league system. 30 years old now...
-
jdrnym 8 hours 50 min ago (view)
Brad Brach signs with the Mets for $850K but the Cubs are paying $500K, per Ken Rosenthal. Wasn't his 2020 club only supposed to be on the hook for league minimum?
-
crunch 9 hours 27 min ago (view)
when he got to the mets he suddenly learned how to throw with control (small sample size etc). last year was not a fun bullpen year...
-
crunch 11 hours 43 min ago (view)
Yeah, I've made myself familiar with a lot of the changes, but AZP's posts have both added more information and cleared up stuff I didn't fully grasp. I appreciate the hell out of it. Thanks Phil, thanks TCR.
-
bradsbeard 13 hours 26 min ago (view)
Looks like Savant has his breaking pitch classified as a curve while Fangraphs calls it a slider. Suppose by ST he could have made everything over in the pitching lab, so who knows!
-
Arizona Phil 13 hours 42 min ago (view)
Again, none of these rules (including the one that requires a pitcher to face a minimum of three batters or else record the final out of the inning) have been officially approved.
I think one possible caveat that might be added to the three-batter minimum rule would be that the pitcher can be replaced prior to facing three batters or recording the final out of the inning if the other team puts up a pinch-hitter.
-
Arizona Phil 13 hours 46 min ago (view)
Ptchers would also be treated differently under the new rules as far as the Injured list and Optional Assignment to the minors is concerned, with pitchers having to spend at least 15 days (up from 10 days) on the Injured List before being eligible to be reinstated and at least 15 days (up from 10 days) on Optional Assignment before being eligible to be recalled (inless the pitcher is being recalled to replace a pitcher on the 26-man roster who has been placed on an MLB inactive list).
-
Arizona Phil 13 hours 46 min ago (view)
SONICWIND: As the rule is proposed, prior to the start of each MLB regular season a club must designate all players on its Opening Day 26-man roster as either a "pitcher" or a "position player." A maximum of 13 can be designated as pitchers (14 pitchers max when rosters expand from 26 to 28 beginning on 9/1).
For players who come up during the season, the club must designate the player as either a pitcher or a position player when the player is placed on the MLB active list roster.
-
Arizona Phil 13 hours 59 min ago (view)
BRADSBEARD: Fangraphs shows the CT as his primary pitch in 2018 with the SL & FB (and an occasional CH) as his secondary pitches, with no CV at all. I guess I'll find out for sure in Spring Training.
-
Sonicwind75 15 hours 16 min ago (view)
AZ Phil, thank you as always for the detailed information. How is the "cannot be a pitcher" part of the rule to be enforced? With a few two way players and the increasing amount of mop up innings being handled by position players it seems like there could be a gray area there. What is preventing a team from stashing an athletic relief pitcher as a "5th outfielder" that could be a pinch runner and play a passable OF when needed but could also provide them with extra relief pitcher. Anytime I hear of a new rule I always think of how Bill Billichek would circumvent it t
-
bradsbeard 15 hours 16 min ago (view)
AZ Phil, looking around Baseball Savant, it looks like Winkler now primarily throws a low 90s cutter, a 4-seamer that he throws a little harder (but is less effective), a curve and a sinker. The slider and change haven't been a major part of his repertoir the last two years. The cutter has been really effective the last two years but it looks like he lost command/effectiveness of his 4-seemer and curve last year For whatever reason
-
bradsbeard 18 hours 36 min ago (view)
They just signed this guy:
https://twitter.com/mlbastian/status/1202973097223237632
-
Hagsag 19 hours 52 min ago (view)
There seems to be a lot of player movement so far. Too bad the Cubs aren't involved.
-
Arizona Phil 1 day 11 hours ago (view)
Beginning in 2019, a club must wait a minimum of seven days before it can place a player who was claimed off Outtright Assignment Waivers during the off-season back onto waivers, so because he was claimed off waivers on Wednesday 11/27, yesterday (Wednesday 12/4) was the first day the Cubs could place LHRP C. D. Pelham back onto Outright Assignment Waivers, and so tomorrow (Friday 12/6) is the first day the Cubs can send Pelham outright to the minors (if he was placed back onto waivers yesterday).
-
Arizona Phil 2 days 8 hours ago (view)
A Competitive Balance draft slot can be traded only during a period of time starting on December 2nd and extending up until two hours prior to the MLB First-Year Player Draft (MLB Rule 4 Draft), so don't be surpised if these draft picks are traded during the off-season.
Keep in mind that the slot cannot be traded for cash unless it is a financial adjustment made to offset the salary of one or more of the players involved in the trade.
-
Arizona Phil 2 days 8 hours ago (view)
The active list roster limit changes scheduled to go in effect in 2020 have not yet been officially approved. Same goes for the three-batter minimum (or else record the third out in the inning) for relief pitchers.
Comments
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
or top 20 Sickels prospects, although Stevens gets mentioned a few times by the commenters...
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/12/29/704...
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
probably wouldn't do it until they sign Bradley...and if they are indeed still going for Peavy, might just do it all together.
I'm sure he'll be on the radio though soon enough.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
DeRo will be playing third base for the Indians.
http://tinyurl.com/7lpq6b
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
If they're not moved in a later deal, Jeff Stevens would probably project as the RHP set-up man at Iowa in 2009 with a possible 2009 call-up at some point, John Gaub would project as a lefty set-up man at Daytona, and RHP Chris Archer would project as a rotation starter at Daytona.
As has been mentioned by Rob G, none of the three are anything close to "hot shot" prospects, although Stevens apparently showed enough promise at AAA Buffalo in 2008 to get a slot on the Indians 40-man roster last month.
While the three pitchers aren't total stiffs, the trade does look like it was basically a salary dump to clear some payroll for Bradley and Peavy. Of the three, I would think only Stevens would be of interest to the Padres in a possible Jake Peavy deal.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Final update on the post with what I can put together on their scouting reports and repertoire...
you're welcome :)
feel free to add to the post if you have anything on them AZ Phil...
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Some old BA scouting reports on the three pitchers the Cubs got frrom Cleveland...
1. Jeff Stevens pitched at Loyola Marymount and was described as having a "deceptive" 90-91 MPH sinking fastball with an "improved" breaking ball and good command and competitiveness at that time. He was drafted in the 6th round of the 2005 draft by the Cincinnati Reds but was the PTBNL in the Brandon Phillips deal, so he's been traded before. He was moved from the starting rotation to the bullpen after he turned pro, and he has really improved his fastball since making the move. He now throws consistently 92-94 MPH with an occasional 96, and he was the closer for Team USA at the World Cup in Taiwan in November 2007.He also throws a slow curve, a cutter, and a slider.
2. John Gaub threw a 96 MPH fastball with a sharp curve and plus change-up as a sophomore at the U. of Minnesota and was one of the top pitching prospects in the Big Ten hoing into the 2005 season, but then he had shoulder surgery (torn labrum) and had a significant loss of velocity on his fastball and break on his curve when he tried to came back in 2006. He was selected by Cleveland in the 21st round of the 2006 draft, and was signed in August for "5th round money" (he actually got a higher bonus than Chris Archer got as the Indians' 2006 5th round pick). He had additional shoulder surgery post-2006 and so he did not make his pro debut until August 2007, and then he began last season rehabbing at EXST, but he is supposedly finally healthy now. He developed a low release angle to compensate for his shoulder injury.
3. Chris Archer was a highly regarded HS pitcher in North Carolina (he probably knows Mitch Atkins) who reneged on an oral commitment to homestate NC State before signing an NLI to attend Miami (Florida). But the Indians offered him $155K to forget college and he took it. Archer threw a 90-92 four-seam fastball at that time, but his breaking ball was supposed to be his "out" pitch. He has had command problems throughout his career, but his hammer-curve was rated the best in the Indians system, and his fastball has also shown improvement (he now throws 92-94), although it has only minimal movement.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Way to go Sullivan
Re: Way to go Sullivan
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
in terms of talent, I think it's a better team...the question is what talent will be on the field.
assuming a healthy rotation of Peavy, Zambrano, Harden, Dempster and Lilly...well that's just fuckin ridiculous. It's also fuckin ridiculous to assume they'll be healthy.
Offensively...
we replace Edmonds/Johnson CF platoon, Fukudome in RF and DeRosa at 2B with most likely Fukudome/Johnson CF platoon, Bradley in RF and Fontenot at 2B.
DeRosa to Fontenot is likely going to be a downgrade from 2008, but essentially replacing Edmonds with Bradley is probably a bit of gain, even though Edmonds had a helluva season. You'll also be limiting Fukudome's at-bats.
if there's no Peavy, it's essentially a lateral move to get more left-handed. If they do get Peavy, it's definitely an upgrade, although the bullpen will be worrisome with just one reliable arm in my opinion.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
pretty sure that DP was in Game 3 in 2007...
on another note, I always feel dirty writing DP
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Bruce Miles
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
thnx for the tip...
gonna pull it up online as I'm too lazy to get my receiver from my car.
will update with anything interesting.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
let's see
Zambrano goes barely up to $17.875M in 2010 (17.75 in 2009) Soriano jumps $2M to $18M and stays there for the rest of his deal Ramirez goes barely up to to $15.75M (15.65M in 2008) Lee stays at $13M Lilly stays at $12M Dempsters stays at $12M (although technically he got $8M and a $4M signing bonus for 2009). Fukudome jumps to $13M from $11.5M
only a $3.75M jump...not too bad, would be if they do add Peavy. Likely to lose $7M off the books with Harden. Soto might be a Super-Two next year but likely to fall short. He should be at 2.096 after next season and if my memory serves me well, Phil says the cutoff usually ends up around 110...technically it's the top 16% of service time.Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
should have clarified my opinion...
Hendry and the Cubs were expecting a new owner to be already named by this point. It was suppose to be done at numerous times over 2008. I don't think it's a coincidence that the big jump in backloaded salaries came after the 2008 season. If you look at it from 2009 and beyond, they stay relatively steady.
Was Hendry expecting to get canned by now? I don't think so, I think he was expecting a new owner.
And isn't backloading contracts pretty common? I don't think this is uniquely a Hendry problem. Someone with an economics degree can explain it better, but I think with inflation, generally rising revenues and payrolls, it usually makes sense. Unfortunately once in awhile, a recession hits or Sam Zell takes over your team and you get screwed.
I would also venture a guess that Hendry had the full approval and possible advice of one Crane Kenney on most of these deals.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
well happy New Year to the both of you!
let's just stop this right here and watch some hockey or college football or flowers on floats.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
some of those first year numbers are probably off as they don't put in the signing bonus $$, fwiw...
but I think it's safe to say Ned Colletti is a big fan of backloading contracts....
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
i was responding to your point about adding Peavy's contract down the road...I know that between last season and next was a significant jump.
I'm saying from 2009 and beyond, it's actually not that big a deal. This was the year that they got their provebial balls stuck in the vice.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
fwiw, fukudome made $10M last year ($4M signing bonus), Dempster shouldn't be in there as he was a free agent and not a backloaded contract.
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa
Re: Cubs Trade Mark DeRosa