Late to the party on this trade due to the holiday weekend, but wanted to make a few points: 1 - Hammel is much more than a throw-in to make the deal happen - Shark and Hammel were both among the top 5 arms likely to be traded by this year's deadline, and Hammel's arguably been the better pitcher this season. That it took both of these guys to get what Oakland returned to them shows just how valued top tier prospects are in today's game. 2 - it's obvious that the Cubs are stockpiling talent to try and flip for impact pitching, which could happen as soon as this offseason - there's just too many middle infielders throughout their organization not to use in trades. The difficulty becomes identifying which of these prospects are better to be traded and better to be kept. The other problem is assuming that impact pitching is there to be acquired for the Cubs when they decide they want it - I think the Cubs would have difficulty finding better options than Shark via trade in the offseason unless they included prospects that Cub fans would hate losing. At some point Theo's gotta pull the trigger and focus on the big league roster, but that never happens overnight, either. Remember, for all this talk of saving money on the major league payroll, they did give Edwin Jackson a 4 year deal for no good reason at all. I think Cub fans are going to be really frustrated when all these guys aren't on the opening day roster next spring, and even more frustrated when they realize the impact pitching available via trade or free agency tends to be the old and very expensive variety. Young, top of the rotation pitching prospects tend to be untouchable nowadays. 3 - Yes, the Cubs currently have a who's who list of prospects in their system, but eventually prospects have to prove it in the big leagues and it's extremely difficult if not impossible to break in a handful of youngsters at the same time and expect them all to treat major league pitching like AA pitching. The KC comparison was poo-pooed earlier in this thread, but I actually think it's quite similar from a prospect standpoint. The difference is the Cubs should have more $ to improve their big league club in areas the prospects can't fill. 4 - for all the talk about how scary the rest of the division looks, wondering why the Brewers' organization isn't mentioned more often...after all, they are currently in 1st place, for all the grief their farm system gets I can't think of a time where pitching depth was better throughout the organization (absolutely critical for being competitive long term in a small market), and I can't think of a team who had a better 2014 draft/international signing period than the Crew. Aside from Nelson their best prospects are years away, but you can't argue the level of talent in the Brewer organization hasn't increased significantly over the last 12 months.