Trade deadline banter

beckdawg said:

That's more of an interesting debate I think because I'm not entirely sure I agree. I'd argue the problem with starting pitching trades is the quality of them often never materializes. For example, how long have the A's been "trading" gray? But if we're talking purely value I'd argue the Quintana trade was reasonably priced. Sale was a big price to pay but he was also probably worth it. Where I bristle a bit when talking about relievers is you really don't know year to year who's going to be good. For example, Rondon was one of the best relievers in baseball for much of last year and then just fell off hard after an injury. Grimm 3 years ago was dominant and looked like a big piece but hasn't had it since. Chapman hasn't been the same this year either.

I think that's what largely makes this discussion interesting. Starters are usually fairly safe bets once they are in the majors. You pretty much know what they are usually outside of injury concerns. And pitching in general is so hard to develop that while paying starting pitching prices hurts, overall I'd argue many starter trades end up being plus value for the teams buying MLB pitchers. In terms of buying via FA, I think that's a bit more hit/miss. For example, do you want David Price on his deal right now? He's been ok but no where near the cy young money they gave him and presumably at age 31 it's only down hill from there.

In terms of how you acquire bullpen help, that's a tough idea in my eyes. Obviously I'm not a fan of paying for it in trade. I'm also not really a fan of paying FA relievers. And drafting and developing pitching in general is just hard for so many reasons. So, I'm not 100% sure there is a reliable way to develop relievers. What I would like to see the cubs do is more focus on guys with big arms who could eventually become something useful. For example, I really liked them picking up Jack Leathersich. He's not quite worked out like you would hope but if he gets some things figured out he can be a really impactful piece. Unfortunately, I don't feel like the cubs have done enough moves like getting him. And obviously there's rule 5 type arms you can try to develop.

The next two years should be interesting. I believe both Rondon and Strop are FA's after this year. Davis definitely is. Think Koji has a 2 year deal. Duensing is on a one year deal. So, the cubs are going to need a lot of help there. Maples is probably good enough that he'll be useful there. He could be one of the better relievers in baseball if he can command his pitches better. His stuff is excellent. And obviously you'll have Edwards and now Wilson plus likely one or two vets. But they are still going to need some arms. I hope they at least try to develop some of their own as say the long man type guy rather than going with more of the Cahill/Duensing type approach.

Click to expand...

We signed Strop to an extension, so we have him next year. I think Koji is gone next year, pretty sure about that. Looks like we have strop, Edwards, Wilson, Grimm, (maybe Monty) I agree on Maples having a lot of upside, especially if he can cut down on the walks. Still have some hope for Grimm, would be nice if could learn another pitch. Our pen does need work next year, but by no means is a lost cause. I also agree bullpen pieces r best found through our own system, that's just not easy.

beckdawg said:

That's more of an interesting debate I think because I'm not entirely sure I agree. I'd argue the problem with starting pitching trades is the quality of them often never materializes. For example, how long have the A's been "trading" gray? But if we're talking purely value I'd argue the Quintana trade was reasonably priced. Sale was a big price to pay but he was also probably worth it. Where I bristle a bit when talking about relievers is you really don't know year to year who's going to be good. For example, Rondon was one of the best relievers in baseball for much of last year and then just fell off hard after an injury. Grimm 3 years ago was dominant and looked like a big piece but hasn't had it since. Chapman hasn't been the same this year either.

I think that's what largely makes this discussion interesting. Starters are usually fairly safe bets once they are in the majors. You pretty much know what they are usually outside of injury concerns. And pitching in general is so hard to develop that while paying starting pitching prices hurts, overall I'd argue many starter trades end up being plus value for the teams buying MLB pitchers. In terms of buying via FA, I think that's a bit more hit/miss. For example, do you want David Price on his deal right now? He's been ok but no where near the cy young money they gave him and presumably at age 31 it's only down hill from there.

In terms of how you acquire bullpen help, that's a tough idea in my eyes. Obviously I'm not a fan of paying for it in trade. I'm also not really a fan of paying FA relievers. And drafting and developing pitching in general is just hard for so many reasons. So, I'm not 100% sure there is a reliable way to develop relievers. What I would like to see the cubs do is more focus on guys with big arms who could eventually become something useful. For example, I really liked them picking up Jack Leathersich. He's not quite worked out like you would hope but if he gets some things figured out he can be a really impactful piece. Unfortunately, I don't feel like the cubs have done enough moves like getting him. And obviously there's rule 5 type arms you can try to develop.

The next two years should be interesting. I believe both Rondon and Strop are FA's after this year. Davis definitely is. Think Koji has a 2 year deal. Duensing is on a one year deal. So, the cubs are going to need a lot of help there. Maples is probably good enough that he'll be useful there. He could be one of the better relievers in baseball if he can command his pitches better. His stuff is excellent. And obviously you'll have Edwards and now Wilson plus likely one or two vets. But they are still going to need some arms. I hope they at least try to develop some of their own as say the long man type guy rather than going with more of the Cahill/Duensing type approach.

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying but the FA thing is pure addition....you lose nothing but money....no raiding of your young talent. Although I can see why it's arguable as there are times when young talent can be an "affordable" loss as when you already have young fixtures in place at the ML level. I will agree with you on a couple things....paying big FA money to a reliever is "fools gold". Kind of why I like this current deal as I believe the Cubs will not re-sign Davis. Also, it is hit/miss on FA starters....for every Lester you'll find a Price. But again, it's money lost not talent and if you're a big money franchise like the Cubs....you can absorb it to a certain extent.

Iceman2385 said:

I don't think we overpaid for Wilson. I think it's pretty fair, and at the trade deadline that's a win. Monty did perform well in the playoffs last year, as effective as chapman? I don't have have both of their numbers in front of me, so I can't say for sure. But guessing I'd say chapman pitched a lot more innings in the postseason (which is very valuable) and in more high leverage situations (I know Monty got the save in game 7 of W.S). And I'd guess he had better numbers too lol. I like Monty and I liked that pickup, but nobody could have known he would have performed that well in the playoffs, seems like we got lucky there? I would definitely trust chapman more then Monty this year in playoffs. Ultimately, I didn't like last years trade of chapman at the time, it worked we won so no reason to complain about that.

To me it seems like ur argument is more about last years trade, which I get, but that's old news. Going into the deadline, I wanted the Cubs to trade for a rental, Neshek. I thought he would be good value and still help our pen w effectiveness and give us a different look. But we got Wilson with an extra year of control and for the price we paid, I'm extremely happy w the deal!

Click to expand...

In post season last year

Montgomery
14.1 IP 6.91 k/9 4.40 bb/9 3.14/3.08 ERA/FIP

Chapman
15.2 IP 12.06 k/9 3.45 bb/9 3.45/2.64 ERA/FIP

Think it's fair to say Chapman may have had a slight edge but it's not huge if at all. As for my argument being more about last year I wouldn't say that. My point is more that last year is an example of how even the "best" reliever is still rather uncertain. I mean look if you're going to tell me that Mariano Rivera is out there for trade and the cubs can have him for an expensive package then ok. He was basically as lock down as it has ever got(0.70/2.23 ERA/FIP). But I think he is the exception. Even a hall of famer like Trevor Hoffman had a 3.46/4.13 ERA/FIP in the post season. Obviously Miller/Chapman struggled in game 7 last year as well. So it happens.

Think it largely comes down to 2 schools of thought. There's the traditional way of thinking and the post Royals way of thinking. For most of history teams would care less about their bullpen and more about having your 2 headed monster a la Schilling/Johnson for the dbacks or Schilling/Pedro for the Red Sox. That is to say guys you can probably get 7 innings out of most nights. The royals couldn't do that. They didn't have the money for that sort of starting pitching so they went for building the best bullpen they could and hoped to get 5 innings out of their starter. In the past few years that model has become more popular largely because getting a starter was so expensive in trade pieces and up until the last year or so relievers were still fairly cheap. But I think it's pretty obvious that reliever prices have sharply adjusted making that value play less interesting.

And I'd argue the cubs didn't win last year's world series because of their bullpen. I'd argue they won it because they had the best 4 starting pitching group in the playoffs. Cleveland arguably had the best bullpen and had to rely on it because of injuries and ultimately in the deciding game it crumbled because it was over worked. That's just my view on the strategy of roster construction. I don't particularly hate Wilson or Avila. I just hate the price they paid. Wilson and Avila certainly make them a better team short term but I feel like losing Paredes is going to greatly impact their long term ability to add pieces similar to how Torres did. If they win the world series again then it's probably worth it but you're gambling your future vs this year and I'm always going to take the ability to compete year to year over going all in because the playoffs can be such a crap shoot.

Ultimately it isn't the end of the world but the cubs are going to have to be smarter than other teams in order to rebuild their farm system in the next 3 years before the young players become expensive near FA players. They actually have a surprising amount of interesting pitching now as 21 of their top 30 prospects on mlb.com are pitchers but in terms of positional bats they are sorely lacking. And the issue is that the IFA rules are now different so finding impact talent is much harder especially when the cubs likely will be drafting in the back third of the 1st round as well as likely will be losing draft picks to sign FAs.

John Shea ✔ @JohnSheaHey
Cubs would love Gray and are monitoring things in case A's-Yankees talks crumble. But not as much to offer as Yankees.
1:23 PM - Jul 31, 2017

Click to expand...

Now this interests me far more. I have no idea how the cubs would pull together something if the Yankees do crumble but if they can pull this off with Wilson/Avila then I frankly don't care about Paredes going.

beckdawg said:

Now this interests me far more. I have no idea how the cubs would pull together something if the Yankees do crumble but if they can pull this off with Wilson/Avila then I frankly don't care about Paredes going.

Click to expand...

Well RIP

Jeff Passan ✔ @JeffPassan
Source: Gray to Yankees done. Fowler, Mateo, Kaprelian coming back.

Click to expand...

Just hope that's not a sign of things to come the next few times the cubs need something and get out bid.

Some quick thoughts:

- Houston is the big loser here. Liriano doesn't solve anything. They don't have 4 starters you'd want starting in the playoffs and while teh pen is good it isn't incredible.
- Yankees are the big winner. I still think the Red Sox have more talent but they're not showing it at all and if Price is badly hurt or can't turn it around they could be in trouble.
- The Cubs did well. I still think a WS repeat will be difficult but not impossible.
- The White Sox have done incredibly well in the last 9 months. Impressive.
- Milwaukee was smart not to go crazy. Their time is at least a year, probably two away.
- The Dodgers are outrageous. Tony Watson helps but as we heard ad nauseum last year, the best team does not always win. My money's still on them though.

TC in Mississippi said:

Some quick thoughts:

- Houston is the big loser here. Liriano doesn't solve anything. They don't have 4 starters you'd want starting in the playoffs and while teh pen is good it isn't incredible.
- Yankees are the big winner. I still think the Red Sox have more talent but they're not showing it at all and if Price is badly hurt or can't turn it around they could be in trouble.
- The Cubs did well. I still think a WS repeat will be difficult but not impossible.
- The White Sox have done incredibly well in the last 9 months. Impressive.
- The Rangers? WTF? How could they not move Darvish? makes zero sense.
- Milwaukee was smart not to go crazy. Their time is at least a year, probably two away.
- The Dodgers are outrageous. Tony Watson helps but as we heard ad nauseum last year, the best team does not always win. My money's still on them though.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd call the Yankees the "big winner." I flat out like the Quintana trade better than the Gray trade. Sure you can argue that Eloy is more impactful than any of the 3 players the A's got but I think Quintana is more impactful than Gray. And it's not as though the 3 guys the A's got are bad. They are risky given their health but if they return to form they could be pretty huge. And Beane rarely loses trades. Gray helps the Yankees for sure though.

On the white sox, i mean I guess the players they have got are nice but my bigger question is how the hell weren't they a better team? Contrast where they were pre Sale trade and where the cubs were when hiring Theo. Cubs had next to nothing to rebuild with. I just sort of question a GM's ability to get good value in trades when it's pretty clear they had good players and couldn't do enough to compliment them to matter. Kopech and Cease in particular are the type of prospects that can rip out your heart because they look so intriguing but have enough flaws to warrant serious concern.

On Liriano, they plan to use him in the pen which is interesting. In terms of starters, I"m honestly not sure Gray makes a difference to them. Quintana might but they really need that top of the rotation guy to lead a staff. If they made a mistake in my eyes it was not being more aggressive on Sale.

On the dodgers, there was an interesting stat I read recently that said in the starts not made by Grienke and Kershaw the dodgers are basically a .500 team the past several years. Think it comes down to whether or not they trust Wood, Hill, and McCarthy to stay healthy. And Kershaw's already hurt.

Cubs probably come out strongest from the deadline. I'd say Yankees are a close second. Dodgers are probably third.

TC in Mississippi said:

Some quick thoughts:

- Houston is the big loser here. Liriano doesn't solve anything. They don't have 4 starters you'd want starting in the playoffs and while teh pen is good it isn't incredible.
- Yankees are the big winner. I still think the Red Sox have more talent but they're not showing it at all and if Price is badly hurt or can't turn it around they could be in trouble.
- The Cubs did well. I still think a WS repeat will be difficult but not impossible.
- The White Sox have done incredibly well in the last 9 months. Impressive.
- The Rangers? WTF? How could they not move Darvish? makes zero sense.
- Milwaukee was smart not to go crazy. Their time is at least a year, probably two away.
- The Dodgers are outrageous. Tony Watson helps but as we heard ad nauseum last year, the best team does not always win. My money's still on them though.

Click to expand...

The Astros, sigh I dno. The American League seems a lot easier to me then the NL in the playoffs tho.

The Dodgers as great as their team is (yea there the favorites) they should have done something. I think we have one advantage over them now with a better bullpen. I think our position players overall could be a wash, I'd give them an advantage in SP if Kershaw is fine, but not a huge advantage we can pitch too. I think our one shot to beating the Dodgers is consistently winning the late innings w a better pen. Gna be tough tho, hopefully they loose to the rocks or Dbacks lol.

And as I write trusting starters to stay healthy the dodgers get Darvish.

So darvish is a dodger now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Dodgers are the big winners.

TC in Mississippi said:

The Dodgers are the big winners.

Click to expand...

I wanna see what they gave up before I proclaim that.

Jon Morosi‏Verified account @jonmorosi 8s8 seconds ago
More
Willie Calhoun to Texas.

I'm assuming there's more than that.

Buster Olney ✔ @Buster_ESPN
The Dodgers have sent three minor-leaguers to the Rangers for Yu Darvish; not Verdugo.

Cubs arguably got the best SP and RP via trades this deadline..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Jeff Passan ✔ @JeffPassan
Source: Dodgers send Calhoun, Alexy and Davis to Rangers for Yu Darvish. Deal done.

Calhoun's mlb.com's #69 prospect. Alexy is their #17 prospect for the dodgers. Davis is their #27 prospect. That's pretty cheap in my eyes. Granted Darvish is a rental but i like that better than I do the Gray trade for impact.

So, couple of thoughts regarding starting pitching. I feel like prices have come down some. The Q trade was a decent return for the sox but not earth shattering. The Gray trade i'd argue was more overall value than the Q trade but more risk. The Darvish trade looks to me to be pretty cheap. Maybe I'm wrong on the cubs not having enough to go after someone like Archer or some other controllable pitcher in the offseason. If that's the prices for 3 pretty well thought of pitchers, then something a touch below Gray level with control seems obtainable and that's all I really think the cubs need long term.

beckdawg said:

So, couple of thoughts regarding starting pitching. I feel like prices have come down some. The Q trade was a decent return for the sox but not earth shattering. The Gray trade i'd argue was more overall value than the Q trade but more risk. The Darvish trade looks to me to be pretty cheap. Maybe I'm wrong on the cubs not having enough to go after someone like Archer or some other controllable pitcher in the offseason. If that's the prices for 3 pretty well thought of pitchers, then something a touch below Gray level with control seems obtainable and that's all I really think the cubs need long term.

Click to expand...

Don't know what will be available in Off season as far as who will make a SP available via trade but I have to think the cubs are going to have to decide between Baez Russell and Happ of who going to stay and play regularly and who to use as trade bait..

All 3 are too talented to not be starting and getting regular ABs..

I can't remember who wrote it but they wrote about how Baez could be bored with regular season play as why he up and down..
I can kinda see that with him and think maybe he the type that just needs to be playing everyday ...




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

chibears55 said:

Don't know what will be available in Off season as far as who will make a SP available via trade but I have to think the cubs are going to have to decide between Baez Russell and Happ of who going to stay and play regularly and who to use as trade bait..

All 3 are too talented to not be starting and getting regular ABs..

I can't remember who wrote it but they wrote about how Baez could be bored with regular season play as why he up and down..
I can kinda see that with him and think maybe he the type that just needs to be playing everyday ...




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I can't see them moving Russell. If Baez were the guy they wanted at SS he'd be there full time and it would be Russell fighting for time. I do agree on the Happ/Baez issue and in my estimation Happ is probably slightly ahead in terms of staying. My question is what sort of trade return can you get with it centered around Baez or Happ? And another question is what pieces you can pair with them to make the deal happen. Hoyer was talking like they really don't want to touch their young pitching in future trades. I could see them moving a Tseng or a Clifton in the right deal for someone now as they aren't really high ceiling guys and they are essentially almost ready themselves.

Overall, I just don't know. I think they probably are hoping Otani stays away this year which he might given he's been hurt. If he does that would be serendipitous for the cubs.

Like I said Happ, Alzolay, Ademan and Zantzny (Mills if healthy as a toss in or Butler) for Archer.

Happ is there. Eloy is still in the pot.

Cease is higher rated but Alzolay is more of a sure thing.

2 toss in were non ranked filler. Ademan and Zant are top 25.

Mills would be a nice toss in.

Over all that deal holds more weight than the Q deal. So as far as value it is there. Now if they are set on Baez and Almora (Fla boys) with Alzolay and a 4th in the top 30 that is doable also.

It really depends if they want MLB ready or more fill for later

With the turn around coming out of the All-Star Break (and morphing into a team that's virtually hot at the Dodgers since the break) Theo needed to keep his foot on the gas, in bolstering pitching. Adding a catcher as well, and I'm liking this trade. The Cubs are trending towards another deep post season run. Him giving Joe the ammo to hold onto the Central, and make a WS push, is fine in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk