Cubs Acquire Daniel Murphy, Infield Insurance Policy
With the Nationals under .500 and their playoff hopes growing slimmer, the club decided to put a few pending free agents on waivers. One of the more prominent names is that of Daniel Murphy, who is headed to the Cubs. The deal was first reported as close by Craig Mish and then confirmed shortly thereafter by multiple sources. Jon Heyman came through with the return, so here’s the deal:
Cubs receive:
- Daniel Murphy
Nationals receive:
- Andruw Monasterio
- Cash or PTBNL
The trade is an interesting one for several reasons. First, because the Cubs were the team to claim him and trade for him, that means that every other team in the National League passed on Murphy. The 33-year-old lefty was in the final year of his three-year, $36 million contract that pays him $17.5 million this season with $5 million deferred to the following two years. That means Murphy is owed about $4 million for the rest of the season. The money, plus a lack of need at Murphy’s position of second base, likely caused other contenders to pass and land in the lap of the team with the best record in the National League.
Murphy missed the first few months of the season with knee surgery then struggled out of the gate with a .194/.231/.264 line. The result was a pitiful 30 wRC+ in his first 78 plate appearances. Since July 9, however, Murphy has resembled his former self, with a .364/.409/.551 line with a 156 wRC+ in 127 plate appearances. Overall, his 108 wRC+ plus poor defense and baserunning — he’s been one of the slowest runners in baseball this year — has made Murphy a roughly replacement-level player. That performance is hurt by his rough start, however, as he’s been around 20% better than average or better in every 10-game stretch since early July.
His projections say he’ll remain about 20% better than average as a hitter going forward. He’s still the same contact hitter he always has been, with a strikeout rate under 10% on the year. His power is down a little bit, but it has been improving over the course of the year. At a minimum, Murphy provides an excellent bench bat and is a potential starter at second and first base. How he fits in precisely with the Cubs is a bit of a mystery. Murphy’s principal position is second base, and the Cubs already have two good second basemen in Javier Baez and Ben Zobrist.
Assuming Murphy will get something close to everyday playing time, the player most directly affected is Baez as the near-everyday second baseman. Baez is going to play everyday somewhere, and the obvious choices are shortstop or third base. At third base, Baez provides some insurance in case Kris Bryant’s recovery is slowed. Recall that the D-backs traded for Eduardo Escobar while Jake Lamb was on the disabled list and working his way back from injury, and almost immediately after the trade, the team announced that Lamb was out for the season. Bryant was scheduled to face live pitching for the first time in nearly a month today. If Bryant isn’t progressing nearly as well as hoped or has a setback, Baez could move over to third base if there are concerns about David Bote handling the full-time role at third base.
Alternatively, Baez could also slide over to shortstop and take playing time from 24-year-old Addison Russell. The Cubs’ current shortstop has played all season and has continued to perform well defensively, but offensively he remains below average. He’s missed time on three different occasions this season due to problems with a finger on his left hand and has just a 37 wRC+ since the All-Star break. If there are lingering concerns over Russell’s injury or his performance on offense in general, the Cubs could improve their lackluster offense — they’ve recorded a 90 wRC+ since the All-Star break and their .136 ISO during that time is ahead of only the Tigers, Marlins, and Giants — by putting Murphy’s bat in the lineup and removing Russell.
Adding Murphy and removing Russell could have a negative impact on the defense and pitching, so there is some risk with the change. Murphy is a below-average second baseman, while Baez is above average there. Russell, meanwhile, is a good-fielding shortstop and Baez is closer to average at that position. The Cubs’ BABIP on ground balls this season is fifth-best in baseball at .215, and Baez at second base and Russell at shortstop likely represent a big part of that hit suppression. Murphy’s bat getting the Cubs’ offense going might be worth the trade-off, but a few more grounders would likely get through.
The cost in prospects was not high. In addition to examining Monasterio in today’s Daily Prospect Notes, Eric Longhenhagen put Monasterio in a group with several other prospects before the season. He wrote:
[They] are all a skinny 5-foot-10 or so and athletic enough to play all over the infield. None of them is likely to hit enough to play everyday, nor play such great defense at shortstop that you don’t care. But one of them might, and if you gather enough of these guys, eventually it will become likely that one of them does. I think this strategy of talent acquisition and development is underrated.
Monasterio is a 21-year-old splitting time between shortstop and second base in High-A, where he has held his own with an average batting line. Ultimately, the Cubs added another good player for the stretch run, and you can’t have enough good players. Murphy represents insurance in case of injuries and underperformance and deepens the Cubs’ bench, whether it’s Murphy who’s on it or whomever he’s displaced. It’s somewhat surprising no other team claimed Murphy, but the money and lack of fit probably scared other teams off. The Cubs stand to gain in what could be a very tight playoff race, and potentially the postseason, where Murphy could once again play hero.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Rockies sure could have used him at first base and as an emergency plan at 2nd and 3rd. Tied for the division lead, and leading the wild-card, 4 million for an upgrade, however small it may be, seems like money well spent. Perhaps they claimed Matt Adams, who never made it to them.
Murphy to the Rockies would have required Jeff Bridich to stop eating paste long enough to check the waiver wire.
Rockies don’t seem to like 1Bs that can hit. Maybe they’re protecting Todd Helton’s legacy?
I’m starting to wonder if the Monforts said no more money available and that’s why the Rockies only deadline move was the minimal salary of Oh.
We’re really entering a new and strange era for trade valuation. Rental players are worth almost *nothing* now.
The “Moneyball model” that everyone derided ten years ago, where you try to hang around and roll the dice on contention every year, and then gun up in July and August if things are breaking right, might be coming back into style.
I’m not saying I disagree, but this might be a bad example. If the Cubs claimed him, and that appears to be the case, the Nats had no leverage other than pulling him back (or letting him go for free). There was no market because of the waiver process.
This isn’t remotely true.
The market for rentals, for all players, hasn’t really changed that much in recent years. In the past few decades, clubs have rarely trade top prospects for rentals. The Chapman trade is one of the few exceptions, and was recent, so it heavily weighs the recent sample. Accordingly, recent years have seen some decline in the price of bat-only corner-only rentals, and some increase in the price of relievers: but again, this change is moderate and driven by the small sample outliers.
Murphy has simply been replacement level this season, and the remainder of the season is short enough that his projected value isn’t much more than he is paid.
Players are worth, generally, their surplus value- as it has been for a while now.
Your comment on the ‘moneyball model’ is also a bit off. The idea of trying to compete regularly has never been derided, and it certainly wasn’t unpopular 10 years ago. And there is nothing at all to suggest that clubs are now ‘gunning up’ in July and August. Deadline trading has been fairly stable now for around 2 decades, with very little variance as far as total WAR traded, value of prospects surrendered, price per WAR, number of clubs trying to add, etc.
Weer the rockies sleeping!?
I’m pretty sure Murphy is a lifetime .998 postseason hitter at Wrigley.
Maddon admitted Russell is bothered by his finger. Guessing they give him rest. Come playoffs, if Russell and Bryant are healthy, it will be a good problem to have Bryant, Russell, Baez and Murphy as options for 3 starting spots.
Yep. Russell would sit against tough righties. Should the Cubs make it to the World Series, Murphy will be an excellent DH candidate also.
Why not at this cost? It reminds me of the JD Martinez deal last year, although JD was more impactful than Murphy is likely to be. Bat first (or bat only) player entering a contract year acquired for very little in return. Murphy has been good with runners on base (not great with RISP) and been very good in all 2 strike counts except for 0-2 which is something the Cubs could certainly use.
Murphy is at -0.7 Offensive runs below average this season, there are questions about whether injury has temporarily sapped his power.
Martinez was around 20 runs above average last season when traded, huge difference.
This site has way overdone the meme that name-veteran players are being undervalued. It was a dumb meme this past offseason (“mid tier Free Agents are the new market inefficiency”), and continues to be an oddly counterfactual meme during this trade deadline.
Just because a player has a name that people know, does not mean he is automatically undervalued. See the recent commentary on the Bour deal.
“Reminds me of” and there being a “huge difference” in runs above average at the time of the trade are two different things, and I think they can co-exist. Just noting there seem to be some similarities between them even though they also have obvious differences and different circumstances. I don’t think Murphy is automatically undervalued because he has a name people know, I think it’s a good move at this cost due to his 2016 and 2017 performance and his performance since the start of July this year. Don’t really care what his name is or if he is a veteran or not. I think he can be a productive bat for an offense that has really been struggling, even if there’s no surplus value due to the remainder of what he is owed.
Murphy was hurt and missed the beginning of the season. He then played hurt and badly for a while, and is now hitting very well again (in line with the last 2 seasons). Full-year totals don’t tell the whole story in Murphy’s case.
Can he play third? Would third better hide his defensive defecincies? Just thinking about it. At least until Bryant returns.
No, he doesnt have the arm for 3rd.
He doesn’t have the anything for 2nd, and yet…
Anecdotally, as a Mets fan, he always looked the most competent at 3rd over 2nd, 1st and especially the outfield.
As a fellow Mets fan, I don’t agree: it always *seemed* like he should be better at third because he was so slow, but he never actually was. This is coming from the guy who didn’t wanted to slide Murphy over to third and not resign David Wright to allocate money elsewhere (right for all the wrong reasons).
His 3B UZR/150 at 3B for the Nationals was -200. It’s based on a (very) small sample size, but still.
Citing Eric & Kiley is beyond a joke.
Look at the self-promoting ‘THE BOARD!’ feature- it’s simply the top J2 talents and the top 1st round picks from recent years- with a heavy emphasis on tools, eye test, and industry survey.
The lists almost never provide any insight, as they are ‘lowest common denominator’ by nature (and anti-data). The lists provided no insight on any recent breakout players, always missing. Underrated Nimmo, Soto, Bieber, and literally nearly every rookie this season.
Basically, if a minor league prospect doesn’t have obvious power and obvious physical tools, and if they were not a 1st rounder or big money J2 player, they do not make the list.
Carson, and before he left Chris Mitchell, were world’s better. Obviously the eye-test, scouting survey Kiley & Eric style is more popular with the ESPN/FOX type audience, but the writeups are a grab bag of offpoint observations, MadLibs style.
Did their eye test and surveys foresee Harrison Bader’s breakout? Of course not- he doesn’t have big obvious tools, huge obvious power, nor was he a 1st rounder. They eye tested his glove as 45/50. He was ranked as a 45 FV in this year’s ST Louis writeup- even after his big league debut. He’s one of the best CFs in the game, and certain among the best defensive CFs- but the fangraphs eye-test/survey crew doesn’t actually have a way accurately measure his ability.
Similarly, they had Nimmo as a 45 FV. The fact that they do not even innovate with an ‘eye’ or ‘discipline’ tool shows that the whole exercise is just a tip of the hat to regressive tradition. Any serious assessment of position players needs to heavily weigh the ability to take avoid outs. KATOH saw Nimmo as an excellent (6+ WAR projection) prospect, but Eric said ‘average’ hit tool and ‘rock solid 45.’ This isn’t cherry picking, any comprehensive review of Eric & Kiley’s work shows that they miss nearly every single good player that lacks 1st/J2 pedigree or very loud tools/power. Just look at ‘THE BOARD!’ – in the top 50, around 25 of 30 drafted prospects are all 1st rounders, with only a few 2nd & 3rd rounders sprinkled in. Guys like Bieber (4th round) are largely added after the fact, once their prospect status is undeniable. Janson, the only prospect near the top 50 that wasn’t a top-4 round pick, is wildly underrated even now, despite his data profile being very strong. Janson posted RC+ of 151 at three levels in 2017- yet he got graded as a 50 FV, with the writeup explaining that many scouts didn’t even regard Janson as a prospect: of course not, he wasn’t a 1st rounder and he doesn’t have the sort of super obvious tools that an 8 year old and a 70 year old would both notice.
There is simply zero insight in their process, none of their insights on tools prove accurate – particularly compared to a data perspective. They gave Wander Franco and Juan Soto ’55s’ for FV on both hit and power- their eye notices nothing that isn’t obvious, and their survey work is lazy outsourcing and regressive. They had Soto at ’50’ FV entering this year. Every year, a large percentage of the best breakout players were given 35 or 40 grades by Eric & Kiley, but were foreseeable by Carson, KATOH, and similar statistically competent assessments.
Their lists provide no insight at all, other than hyping every consensus prospect. Sure, Eric & Kiley loved Acuna, but they loved Ahmed Rosario more. They loved Ohtani, sure, but they loved Dansby Swanson about just as much. They fail to provide insight on literally every single non-consensus prospect.
The ‘risk’ column in their feature is another laugh. Many higher risk players are actually given the lowest risk grades. Madrigal, for crying out loud, is listed as ‘low risk.’ So is Willie Calhoun. I understand the simple pseudo-logic, i.e. that this is just guess-work, and these players ‘feel’ safe, either because of a glove/speed combo that should provide certain floor, or due to bankable tools. But this pseudo-logic simply reveals a complete lack of empirical talent and ability- instead of using pseudo-logic to guess which players have a high floor, data analysis can be used to estimate much more accurately a player’s risk factor.
The Eric & Kiley stuff really is fangraphs’ most antithetical feature. It’s so intentionally regressive, and anti-intelligent/anti-data. It seems that, because it is fangraph’s most regressive feature, and because MLB front offices are still more regressive than they will admit- fangraphs had two ‘eye test’ staff members (Kiley & August) make the jump to MLB front offices. This industry-placement seems to have cemented the regressive feature, which admittedly has always been very popular on this sight.
A deep dive on prospects from a data perspective, like KATOH or Fringe 5, has always and will continue to blow away the eye testing/survey stuff. There is a reason that KATOH et al were happy to look back at their work, assessing predictive values- but the Kiley & Eric process is not transparently reviewed or revisited to assess accuracy. Any review would be quite embarrassing because the method lacks a serious epistemology.
I think nimmo as a 45 is ok. He was a high walk guy with K issues and questionable power. It was a surprise that he became a 230 iso hitter.
High walk guys with average power and k issues are dime a dozen in the majors. Just ask tyler white and dan vogelbach who have been walk machines in the minors.
The vast majority of performance over tools guys never make it.I love carson and his fringe 5 and he forcasted some awesome breakouts but the vadt majority of fringe 5 guys just disappear.
The idea of a separate plate discipline tool has been proposed since 15 years but time and time again it showed that this doesn’t transfer without other tools.
I think the correct way to handle batting eye is bumping hit tool half a grade up or down, I.e 45 bat with 12+ walk rate gets a 50 and 40 if it is below 5%
Nimmo is not a great example too. As you said, the ISO is a major surprise and he’s most likely riding an unsustainable BABIP. I’d bump Nimmo up to a 50 now, but any higher is hoping that the power and BABIP are sustainable.
I tend to agree. What I hate is how definitively they talk about players when history shows they shouldn’t be definitive about anyone. When I read so & so is a 45, not much pop, probably a bench guy, I tend to think, well, is that what they said about Jose Ramirez (or about 100 other guys) because he sure as hell wasn’t on any of these lists.
Do you hate when stock prices go up and down too?
Things change, we get more info, and we reevaluate. Or at least, we should. And both Eric and Kiley have shown to do that imo.
Well the fv is an average outcome not a ceiling and even ceiling and floor are more like 10th and 90th percentile and not absolute borders.
There are 45s who become stars but there are also many never making the majors
You act like the whole industry wasn’t all over Rosario and Swanson.
You also act like people were supposed to anticipate a guy in A ball at the beginning of this year breaking into the big leagues faster than almost everyone in history.
Everything you described is the way the industry traditionally operates. Flukes happen. For every prospect you mention that made it without big tools, hundreds have floundered. Good job, you picked three guys over-performing. Since you love data so much, let’s get more on Nimmo and Bader before bumping them up over their current FV.
Can they use data better? Sure. But are they a joke? Absolutely not.
While I disagree with much of ThomServo’s speech up above, everyone should have known that Soto was for real. The guy looked like a future 5-win player for, say, 2021.
On the other hand, that he was a 2.5-3 win player in 2018 in 2/3rds of a season while he was still a teenager should have shocked everyone, but it’s true that Eric and Kiley (along with everyone else) seriously dropped that ball on this one.
Breathe, man… just breathe.
I’m not sure what your criticism is here… players with loud tools have higher upsides and thus are more likely to be stars. Trout, Harper, Lindor, Bregman, Machado, Betts weren’t exactly sleepers. Even players like Chapman and Judge, they were well known to prospect lists. Jose Ramirez remains the exception. And those exceptions make all of this more fun imo.
Development is not liner nor is it predictable. No one can predict the future. I’m speaking in cliches now, so let’s look at your three examples.
Bieber was given an 80 command for crying out loud. “The stuff, alone, projects to the back of a rotation, but Bieber’s ability to locate gives him a chance to be a mid-rotation arm. It’s possible he has elite command and becomes something more.” So far he’s looked like a middle of the rotation guy with something more.
Nimmo was a first round pick. He’s probably riding BABIP luck and if you knew he’s ISP would jump between AAA and MLB as much as it did over the winter, kudos. I would not have predicted that.
Soto looked great, everyone is in agreement there, but there wasn’t a ton of info on him because of his age and injuries. He went to another level. Great for the Nats.
Not to nit pick at KATOH but it had Dylan Cozens as the #2 prospect in the minors in 2016. Other names in the top 11: Bregman, Gallo, Margot, Crawford, Turner, Albies, Meadows, Benintendi. It’s not like KATOH varied that much from Top 100 lists from two years ago.
Your criticism, upon reading it again, really isn’t valid. We’re not dealing with numbers or budgets… it isn’t science. So I’m not sure what your point is upon reading it again. They didn’t like Bieber enough? That KATOH was correct in pegging Benintendi as good? But the scouts did too… so where are you going with this?
Is this return (40fv) better than a comp pick? Or were the nats afraid murphy would take the QO?
Murphy couldn’t have been offered a QO, since he’d had one previously.
Did that rule from the latest CBA include all QOs offered under past CBAs or was it a “starting now” deal? I assumed the latter.
I hate to be THAT guy. I like the writing on this site and raise this issue to help keep this site better than ESPN. You have to ditch the phrase “moving forward.” It’s meaningless, which is why no one used it before a couple of years ago. The sentence was, “His projections say he’ll remain about 20% better than average as a hitter going forward.” You can end it with “rest of the season” if that’s what is meant, you can change it to “His projections show he’ll hit about 25% better than average.” or you can just drop the “going forward.” After reading what I’ve written, I realize that I am THAT guy, but I can’t stop myself.
You would think that a BA of .300 would be worth a little more than 0.1 WAR at this point. That must be some SERIOUSLY bad defense (in addition to not knowing what a walk is).
Also how was soto underrated? He was a consensus top100 pre season despite only having played short season in 16 and like 30 games in A ball due to injury in 17.
He did perform very well but it was a small sample at low levels due to injury.