Deadline Deals and Non-Deals I Liked… and Didn’t Like
The 2019 trade deadline has come and gone, and while it provided a frenzy of late-breaking activity, ultimately it offered far more quantity than quality. With the exception of Trevor Bauer, Zack Greinke, and Marcus Stroman, most of the top starters whose names have been tossed around for the past several weeks — including Matthew Boyd, Madison Bumgarner, Mike Minor, Robbie Ray, Noah Syndergaard, and Zack Wheeler — ended up staying put, and likewise when it came to relievers. What’s more, there weren’t many big bats dealt, and in general, the combination of too many teams that view themselves as contenders and the loss of the August waiver period led to approaches that felt far too risk-averse.
Regarding the volume, first consider the accounting of True Blue LA’s Eric Stephen from a year ago as compared to this year. Last year, there were 18 trades on July 31, and 37 from July 25 onward. This year there were 22 on July 31, and 35 from July 25 onward. In terms of quality, last year there were six position players (Manny Machado, Eduardo Escobar, Tommy Pham, Ian Kinsler, Asdrubal Cabrera, and Mike Moustakas) who had higher WARs at the time they were dealt than this year’s leader, Franmil Reyes (1.4). On the other hand, this year had more pitchers above that baseline (five to four), and where J.A. Happ led last year’s brigade at just 2.0 WAR, Greinke (3.6, not counting his 0.7 as a hitter), Stroman (2.9) and Bauer (2.7) all surpassed that. Finally, by the accounting of colleague Ben Clemens — whose study of deadline activity goes back to 1986 and can be found here — last year, there were 143 players traded in all of July; they had totaled 64.9 WAR in 2017 and were on pace to total 62.1 WAR in 2018. This year, there were 126 such players dealt; they totaled 55.1 WAR in 2018 and were on pace for just 45.6 WAR this year.
What follows here is a breakdown of five of my favorite trades (or in some cases, sets of trades) of July and five of my least favorite trades and non-trades. Admittedly, I’m viewing these with a vague bias towards winning now, and against your favorite team (I kid, I kid). In some cases, I wrote about these deals myself, while for others, I’ll refer you to the fine analysis of my colleagues in order to keep this from becoming a novel.
Favorites
1. Astros acquire RHP Zack Greinke from Diamondbacks for four prospects
To these eyes, the boldest move of the deadline was clearly the best. At a time when so many other top contenders talked themselves out of paying high prices to acquire top talent, the Astros — who already owned the AL’s best record (69-39, .639) — added the 35-year-old Greinke in exchange for righties J.B. Bukauskas and Corbin Martin, first baseman Seth Beer, and infielder/outfielder Josh Rojas. As Dan Szymborski detailed, Greinke’s curve keeps getting better and better, and he’s currently ninth in the majors in pitching WAR (it’s a shame he likely won’t bat much the rest of the way).
While the two pitchers Houston sent to Arizona ranked fourth and third respectively on the Astros’ prospect list as of March, none of the players they dealt rank among our Top 100 prospects, and Martin, who made five appearances for the Astros in May and June, recently underwent Tommy John surgery. That Greinke’s contract runs through 2021, with the Diamondbacks picking up about 31% of the remaining tab, makes this all the better for the Astros, as it protects them against the potential loss of Gerrit Cole in free agency while costing them only about $22.7 million per year on an annualized basis.
2. Indians acquire OF Yasiel Puig, OF Franmil Reyes, LHP Logan Allen, 3B Victor Nova, and LHP Scott Moss for RHP Trevor Bauer
While I think that all three teams in Tuesday night’s three-way trade made out fine, it’s the Indians’ angle I like the best, particularly given that they hold the top AL Wild Card spot and have closed to within three games of the Twins. I’ve harped again and again about the team’s offseason failures and lousy outfield and DH production, and here they’ve addressed those problems, both in the short- and long-term.
While dealing Bauer presents some risk, he was clearly the cause of some headaches for manager Terry Francona, and the emergence of Shane Bieber and the strong work of Mike Clevinger since returning from injuries makes the move more defensible, particularly if the Indians believe that some combination of Corey Kluber, Carlos Carrasco, and Danny Salazar can contribute down the stretch. Allen may not be ready yet, but pitching prospects with Future Values of 50 don’t grow on trees, and as the aforementioned names suggest, Cleveland’s track record with young pitching recently has been very good. Plus, this deal means that Bauer’s last act as an Indian was this:
Trevor Bauer got a little upset today. pic.twitter.com/cZ3ZdfdwIt
— ESPN (@espn) July 28, 2019
Of course, Puig’s last act as a Red was this (starting around the 2:12 mark):
Here's the whole shebang pic.twitter.com/ngoXSgbQIK
— CJ Fogler account may or may not be notable (@cjzero) July 31, 2019
Keep that Excedrin close, Terry.
3. Cubs acquire OF Nicholas Castellanos from Tigers for RHP Alex Lange and RHP Paul Richan
Last year, Castellanos set across-the-board career highs in all three slash stats (.298/.354/.500) as well as wRC+ (130) and WAR (3.0), and while he hasn’t lived up to that in his age-27 season, he’s moving to a park that’s more favorable for righty power. He’s not a perfect fit for the Cubs’ lineup, though by bumping Jason Heyward to center field and Albert Almora Jr. to the bench, he helps upgrade Chicago’s offense even if it does come at the expense of their outfield defense. Where the righty bat particularly helps is against lefties; the Cubs have hit just .235/.319/.423 against southpaws, for a 92 wRC+ (tied for 19th in the majors). Castellanos has hit .340/.392/.590 against lefties since the start of 2017; his 160 wRC+ in that context ranks ninth. The two pitching prospects the Cubs gave up, who grade out at 40 FV and 35 FV, respectively, aren’t likely to come back to haunt them. For more, see my writeup here.
4. Braves acquire RHP Shane Greene from Tigers, RHP Mark Melancon from Giants, and RHP Chris Martin from Rangers
“But wait, that’s three trades!” you’re probably saying, but I can’t hear you over this Stereolab live set, and since it’s my list, it’s my rules. While the Braves’ bullpen entered Wednesday ranked third in the NL in ERA (4.15), the unit was 12th in FIP (4.78), 11th in K-BB% (12.7%), and ninth in K% (23.8%). Greene’s 1.18 ERA isn’t supported by his peripherals, but he does miss bats (28.5% K rate) and generate groundballs galore (53.8%). Melancon isn’t as good as he was prior to his forearm woes, which limited him to 69 innings in 2017-18, but his 3.33 FIP, 0.58 HR/9, and 61.4% groundball rate all suggest he can help. The oft-injured Martin, who’s 33 and has never surpassed 41.2 innings in a major league season, is more of a curiosity given his extreme strikeout and walk rates (29.3% and 2.7%, respectively), and getting out of Arlington, where he’s allowed six homers in 21 innings this year, should help. While I’m no prospect hound, I don’t see anything that they gave up in young pitching (Kolby Allard, Tristan Beck, Joey Wentz, Dan Winkler – in deals addressed here, here, and here) that they can’t live without (that the Giants have already designated Winkler for assignment reinforces my stance), and the fact that they took on Melancon’s remaining $18 million, after pinching pennies in so many different ways, certainly helped that.
5. Mets acquire Marcus Stroman for LHP Anthony Kay and RHP Simeon Woods-Richardson
I’ve warmed to this one since writing about it on Sunday and seeing what the Mets have done since — or haven’t, since they didn’t trade either Noah Syndergaard or Zack Wheeler. Oddly, I get the impression that the fact that they obtained Stroman, who has one-plus year of club control remaining, for two pitchers who are viewed merely as 45 FV prospects may have undercut the offers they received on their pair. There was no reason to sell low on Syndergaard, who has two-plus years of control remaining; a rotation with Jacob deGrom, Syndergaard, Stroman, and Steven Matz has the potential to be one of the NL’s best next year. While I’m not crazy about the fact that they kept Wheeler, a pending free agent who surely could have brought back something of value, the combination of their front five, their current 12-4 surge, and the league’s fourth-softest remaining schedule does leave them with a chance to salvage some respectability this season. Their playoff odds are up to 19.1%, after all.
Least favorite
1. Yankees fail to add a starting pitcher
They lead the AL East by 7.5 games, but their rotation has been lit up for a 6.23 ERA and 5.82 FIP in July, and the seams are showing. They’ve been without Luis Severino all season and may not get him back as a starter. CC Sabathia is on the injured list for the third time this year (and second time to deal with his troublesome right knee). Masahiro Tanaka has struggled with his splitter due to the lower seams on this year’s ball, and neither James Paxton nor J.A. Happ have lived up to expectations. Brian Cashman is said to have pursued Wheeler, Bumgarner, Ray, Stroman, and who knows who else, but save for a minor league deal involving pitchers Alfredo Garcia and Joe Harvey, for once, he came home empty-handed on deadline, even given his reported willingness to deal outfielder Clint Frazier. Yes, their bullpen is strong, but today it’s very difficult to envision this team getting past the Astros.
2. Red Sox fail to add a late-inning reliever
I’ve written about Boston’s bullpen woes again and again, to the point that I might break the record for sounding like a broken record. After failing to adequately replace free agents Craig Kimbrel and Joe Kelly, and watching one of their key late-inning options, Ryan Brasier, pitch his way back to Triple-A, their relief corps entered Wednesday a respectable fifth in the AL in FIP (4.16) but just 10th in ERA (4.53) and last in walk rate (10.6%). At the beginning of the month, president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski and manager Alex Cora announced plans to use Nathan Eovaldi — then recuperating from arthroscopic surgery to remove loose bodies in his right elbow — as their closer, a job the 29-year-old righty has never held before. So far, he’s allowed five runs in 3.2 innings over four appearances, and isn’t yet ready to handle save situations. The Sox explored trading for Greene as well as Andrew Chafin, Edwin Díaz, Daniel Hudson, and Will Smith… but wound up with bupkis. That will put more stress on their existing options, such as they are.
Dombrowski said he didn’t like the cost of any potential acquisition, particularly given that “Realistically, we’re probably playing first for a wild-card spot… If we were closer to first place, I would’ve been more open-minded.” While that makes some sense, it’s difficult to justify not finding some smaller way to enhance your chances to win when you’re already carrying a major league-high $236 million payroll. In for a penny, in for a pound.
3. Dodgers fail to add an impact reliever
Another bullpen situation that I’m prone to prattling on about. While their unit entered Wednesday fourth in the NL in ERA (4.17) and fifth in FIP (4.31), it doesn’t look anything close to the ‘pens that helped them reach back-to-back World Series. While Joe Kelly, their big offseason addition, has pitched better lately (2.12 ERA and 2.52 FIP since the start of June) after delivering an 8.35 ERA and 5.57 FIP through the end of May, Kenley Jansen no longer looks like an elite closer; he’s pitched to a 4.24 ERA and 3.58 FIP since the start of June. Pedro Baez and Caleb Ferguson have regressed from last year’s strong contributions, Yimi García can’t keep the ball in the park, and Dylan Floro, Ross Stripling, and Scott Alexander are all on the IL, not that any of them holds the key to the unit’s success.
The Dodgers tried to pry the Pirates’ Felipe Vázquez loose, but reportedly wouldn’t include either infielder Gavin Lux (number 10 overall on THE BOARD) or righty Dustin May (number eight) alongside catcher Keibert Ruiz (number 12), and I can’t say I blame them. They couldn’t get Díaz or Greene, whom they were interested in as well. They did add sinkerballing lefty Adam Kolarek from the Rays, but he’s not enough to move the needle. The best they can hope for now is that their surplus of starters — including a healthy Rich Hill, eventually — allows them to bolster the bullpen down the stretch, as in years past.
4. Nationals acquire LHP Roenis Elias, RHP Daniel Hudson, and RHP Hunter Strickland
I’m playing the hits on this list, so here’s another number you’ve heard me sing before, this one about about the bullpen being the bane of general manager Mike Rizzo’s existence. Over the years, Rizzo’s failure to adequately address the team’s bullpen depth and quality in the offseason has cost them talent such as Nick Pivetta (to the Phillies in 2015 for Jonathan Papelbon), Vazquez (to the Pirates in 2016 for Melaoncon), and Jesus Luzardo and Blake Treinen (both to the A’s for Doolittle and Ryan Madson in 2017). While the Nationals added Trevor Rosenthal, who missed all of last year due to Tommy John surgery, and Kyle Barraclough before the season, it wasn’t anywhere close to enough. Rosenthal was released on June 23, Barraclough has pitched to a 6.66 ERA and 6.58 FIP, and the unit as a whole entered Wednesday with an MLB-worst 5.99 ERA; their 4.80 FIP was merely the third-worst in the NL.
So yes, they needed help, and in bulk (you can read about the deals here and here). For as much as I like Hudson, his peripherals aren’t much better than they were with the Dodgers last year. Strickland’s results have never matched his stuff, and he’s got just 3.1 innings under his belt this year after missing time due to a lat strain; that he’s a National now, after brawling with Bryce Harper, is quite amusing. Elias has been replacement level fodder for most of his career. To borrow an Abraham Lincoln phrase that my former Baseball Prospectus colleague Steven Goldman was fond of citing, “If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.”
5. Blue Jays trade IF Eric Sogard and RHPs Joe Biagini, Daniel Hudson, David Phelps, Aaron Sanchez, and Marcus Stroman for… stuff
I was originally tempted to include the Giants here for not selling Bumgarner and Smith, but having slept on it and done some homework, I’ve reconsidered my position, and more fully understand the decision to blow up most of the bullpen, free up some payroll, restock the system, and stay invested in the season. So instead I’m going with the Blue Jays here.
Look, I’m no prospect expert by any stretch of the imagination, but like a Holiday Inn Express customer, the knowledge I draw from my surroundings — in this case, primarily the expertise of colleagues Eric Longenhagen and Kiley McDaniel in the form of their team prospect rankings and THE BOARD, but also other voices within the industry whose work I read and respect — makes me feel like one sometimes. I’m no scout, either, but I can read a dang prospect list, and looking at the Blue Jays’ one after they’ve dealt all of the aforementioned players, I’m hardly wowed.
Hudson and Sogard were pending free agents, but Stroman and Sanchez each had a year of control remaining, while Biagini had three years remaining, and Phelps an affordable club option. For all of the prospects they received — Kay and Woods-Richardson for Stroman; outfielder Derek Fisher for Sanchez, Biagini, and outfield prospect Cal Stevenson; righty Thomas Hatch for Phelps; and righty Kyle Johnston for Hudson — the big picture seems pretty underwhelming. They sold early on Stroman (why not wait a couple of days?) and low on Sanchez (6.07 ERA, 5.03 FIP), and they took in far more quantity than quality, as none of the newcomers is a top 100 prospect, not even for Stroman, the best player they traded. GM Ross Atkins’ claim that he “turned 14 years of control into 42 years of control” isn’t going to sell a single ticket.
On THE BOARD, Woods-Richardson grades out at a 45+ Future Value and Kay a 45. Reasonable minds can certainly differ when it comes to prospects — MLB Pipeline grades both as 50s, for example — but neither cracks their top 100, let alone ours, and they currently rate as the team’s fifth- and sixth-best prospects, respectively. Fisher was a 45 two years ago, before hitting for a 77 wRC+ in his first 312 major league plate appearances, which is to say that his stock is down. Of the rest, Hatch (40 FV) ranks 28th on the team’s list, while Johnston doesn’t crack it. If the relievers weren’t going to bring back much individually, perhaps they could have done better by bundling them.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps… perhaps I’ll get a good night’s sleep now that the deadline is past.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
Surprised no mention of the non-move of Bader or O’Neill for Wheeler here. An org supposedly mad at not making the playoffs since ’15 being unwilling to trade a depth position for what would be their potential number 1 seems like a major concern.
I think once some of the (justifiable!) anger with the Cardinals for making zero moves of any real impact has cooled, most will come around to the fact that it was pretty reasonable to walk away from Wheeler at that price. (I mean, unless Bader really has forgotten how to hit entirely, but that doesn’t seem too likely.)
They should have brought in a rotation arm. Not doing so was a major failure, and I’d have included it in Jay’s list. Not doing that particular deal, though… eh.
Wheeler has been better than any Cardinals starter this year by FIP/xFIP.
Bader for Wheeler is a trade both teams should have been ecstatic to do. Really no excuse for the Cardinals walking away from that one.
Bader might end up being good, but I’d rather have O’Neil who also somehow is one of the fastest players in the game
Maybe I’m the wrong person to answer this question, because I don’t understand why the Cardinals aren’t playing Bader.
But it seems like the Cardinals should be keeping and playing Bader, not trading him.
Fowler is good and all, but it’s hard to imagine that their best outfield arrangement doesn’t involve Bader in some way.
Have you watched Bader hit this year?! His bat has sucked so badly this year that even his stellar defense hasn’t made up for it to deserve a starting job! He’s not going to start ahead of Ozuna, Fowler, Martinez, or O’Neill, and even Munoz and his <.700 OPS might be a better outfield option! The Cardinals can't afford to play Bader while contending for a playoff spot.
It's certainly too early to give up on Bader, and he does have some situational value as a pinch-runner and late inning defensive replacement, but his demotion is fully deserved. Meanwhile, he's not likely to break out of his slump while riding the bench, so AAA is the best place for him right now.
I think you lost me where you said that Martinez and O’Neill should be starting ahead of Bader. I also suspect Bader is due for a lot of positive regression to the mean…his xwOBA is pretty promising compared to his actual wOBA.
Of course they should. Even with his contact issues, O’Neill is still a decent overall hitter and plays good defense. As for Martinez, he’d be better as a bench bat (or an AL DH), but he can hit well enough to mostly make up for his terrible defense in a pinch. Aside from the battery, it’s better to have guys who can hit but can’t field than the opposite.
As for Bader’s possible regression, he’ll have a lot easier time figuring that out in AAA where he can play everyday and not cost the Big League team wins and hopefully be able to contribute more in a September call-up or maybe even sooner.
Harrison Bader: 0.8 fWAR, 260 PAs
Tyler O’Neill: 0.2 fWAR, 136 PAs
Jose Martnez: 0.4 fWAR, 329 PAs
So basically, Bader is about twice as good as O’Neill and Martinez, potentially more. And before we start defending Martinez by noting he played a bunch at 1B where he’s a bad defender, his defense is way worse in the outfield. And that’s with Bader getting awfully unlucky.
You’re leaving out the part where Bader’s xwOBA (.307) is in the 26th %tile & his .215 xBA is in the 6th %tile. This coming on the heels of last year’s .295 xwOBA, it safe to say Bader could use some ABs in AAA.
Any writer here on the site will tell you that splitting hairs over decimal points of WAR is worthless. All of the assumptions & error bars involved in the WAR calculation mean that while the formulas will spit out as many decimal points as you want, 0.8 fWAR vs 0.4 fWAR is not a meaningful difference. Given what we know about the accuracy of offensive & defensive WAR calculations, in an effective tie (like the sad horse race you posted above), I would take the O’Neill & Martinez over Bader’s contributions every single time.
So basically, you’re saying:
(1) The evidence isn’t strong enough to support any conclusion
(2) So my point is right
I refer you back to your logic textbook. Either it doesn’t matter or it does, but if it does matter it certainly doesn’t support your position.
Bader seems like a steep price to pay for a few months of Wheeler, esp. since the latter isn’t exactly an automatic W. as a prospect, you would never trade Bader, so maybe let him figure it out at AAA.
Going by FIP/xFIP, Wheeler is better than any Cardinals starter. So there’s that.
I feel like I’ve read this somewhere before…
Since when is the MLB outfield a position of depth for the Cardinals?! They need everybody they currently have just to string one together right now, even with Ozuna due back soon. You can complain about not making a move for Wheeler or another starting pitcher, but they weren’t going to trade guys like Bader (even with his recently fully deserved demotion) or O’Neill to do it.
How times change: at this time last year they traded away Grichuck, Pham, and Mercado. Tampa, Toronto, and Cleveland seem happy.
Probably not Toronto, but that more to do with that extension than the trade.
Cardinals failing to do anything in a very winnable division?
I kind of think the Brewers fit into this category too, but I’m also starting to wonder if the Brewers think they’re real contenders. As talented as they are, if you need pitching, normally you don’t trade for guys who need as much fixing as Ray Black or Jacob Faria. And Drew Pomeranz has been awful this year, except for the five innings he’s pitched in relief…I think it’s possible the Brewers just didn’t think they could do much of anything to make themselves contenders right now.
Or maybe I’m just rationalizing what I see as some underwhelming deals.
Brewers confuse me. Leaving Hiura in Triple A so long while they had holes at the major league level must have cost them a win or two in the standings. Who cares about Super two status when you are probably locking him up in a long term deal soon! Brewers seem better at breaking good pitchers than fixing broken ones.
The weird one is SF. They made their team significantly weaker by trading quality bullpen pieces, but didn’t trade their expiring contracts, and then they went out and got a win now asset in Gennett. I like that they got Dubon back, but this seemed like a bit of a schizophrenic approach to the deadline.
I also think the big loser this deadline was, in general, teams that were trying to acquire impact prospects. An awful lot of lottery tickets changed hands…
Can we stop ripping on bad decisions by comparing them to mental illnesses? It denigrates people with such conditions (through no choice of their own) by associating them with people who make bad choices on their own. Thanks!
I don’t think the way it’s being used here is particularly denigrating. “Schizophrenic” has long been used to mean that there are conflicting elements to something.
Hold on now, this is an internet message board, if you’re not here to voice your deeply held feelings of offense about something you’re doing it wrong.
“(in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements.”
I find this word has a nicely tailored and specific meaning and is on occasion much more evocative of the nature of what i’m trying to describe than merely saying ‘inconsistent’.
Though, I will concede, that many word usages that are now considered uncouth were at one point widely accepted.
I tried to be nice, but since you are being dismissive, I’ll follow up by saying I don’t think you understand what schizophrenia is, let alone how your invocation of the disorder to describe a bad, voluntary decision is insulting to people with mental illness or their family members. I don’t know where you got your quote from, but the DSM diagnosis criteria for schizophrenia involves observable symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, etc. it is not “inconsistent or contradictory elements,” whatever the fuck that means.
You are equating people who contradict themselves with people who have a mental illness that has nothing to do with just taking contradictory positions. You know why people who have mental illness and their families feel ashamed and isolated, even though they’ve done nothing wrong? It’s because of bullshit like this that equates mental illness doing bad things voluntarily. Your word choice is not nicely tailored to discussing a baseball acquisition, it’s thoughtless and dehumanizing to many people. I hope you can grow up and learn that your words have meaning.
Words absolutely do have meaning, like the meaning I copied into the post above. You are not making an argument about meanings, you’re making an argument about implications, which is quite different, and implications should ideally be informed by an understanding of the general meaning of the term.
So if you think by calling something schizophrenic I am implying “This person is exhibiting behaviors just like someone who actually has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and that is bad and they are bad and I laugh heartily at their expense” that is a fairly disingenuous take. Instead perhaps realize that when people use the term they are not talking about someone with mental illness, they are not making a qualitative statement about people with mental illnesses, they are simply using a word, a word that has a specific meaning.
For a counter example, there was a period where douchey (another loaded word, I suppose) guys found it acceptable to call things ‘gay’ as stand-in for ‘bad’. In that example, there was no dictionary definition of the term establishing that as a common usage, and the usage of the word very clearly implied a link between the word, it’s expressed meaning, and the people to whom it referenced. Here, instead, people don’t use the term with malicious (conscious or sub-conscious) feelings towards anyone with mental illness, and it’s not understood by general listeners to mean any such thing (as shown in part by its dictionary definition).
I do apologize for the snark in my previous post – I understand that this may be a personal issue for you, or at least something you care deeply about, and I appreciate and respect that you’ve expressed yourself well about your feelings on the matter. What you’ve said is certainly worthy of consideration and I’m sure I’ll be re-examining my thoughts on the issue with yours in mind.
CC AFC: This is the dictionary definition of schizophrenia you get when you google it:
“a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation.
•(in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements.”
The former is the traditional medical definition, the one you’re thinking of, the latter, posted by Brosseau, is the “commonly used” definition, even though it doesn’t adequately describe the mental illness. To this day, most of the general public equates schizophrenia with “multiple personality disorder” and thinks that having conflicting/contradictory/inconsistent elements is consistent with schizophrenia.
So we have both the argument concerning the definition of the word, as well as whether its use in dialogue like this could be considered offensive.
I see CC’s point, and I think Brousseau’s response was reasonable.
Oh! Soo… you actually were serious?!?!
Oh look, here comes CC AFC throwing expletives around again while telling others to “grow up”.
Just because the r-word was used for a long time to describe people with developmental disabilities doesn’t make it acceptable
Of course. I just don’t think that the negative connotation is the same here. But you’ve given me pause, and I’ll personally try to be more mindful of this kind of thing.
Thank you!
LOL! But I have to concur, that I feel quite differently about people who are actually suffering from mental illnesses (sympathy) from GMs who mess up baseball teams.
They dumped a giant underwater contract in Melancon on the Braves, which Braves’ fans don’t like. They’ll QO Bumgarner so they’ll get a supplemental first-round pick for him when he signs elsewhere. And teams who wanted left-hand relievers found pretty good ones at much lower prices than what Will Smith would have cost. Might as well keep him and and Gennett for a quixotic shot at the playoffs.
And they could still sign Bumgarner…
…Braves fans don’t like the contract? Weird fans. So they just like owners to keep all the money, and not spend it on talent? Better money than prospects.
I do agree with the overall comment though. Giants are going for it but the cost is overestimated. I think the complaints stem from fans of good teams that didn’t get a shot at the Giants good players.
Spending $27M over 1.5 years for a mid-leverage reliever is stupid. Even teams on much higher budgets like the Yankees and Red Sox don’t do that. For most fans, this is axiomatic. You need it explained, apparently.
$27 million????
My bad. It looks like it’s more like $20M. His signing bonus confused me. ~$6M (2019) + $14M (2020). https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/atlanta-braves/mark-melancon-7335/
This fake “anti-owner” nonsense that overpaid players don’t matter to fans is just a PR meme.
Owners suck, yes. They take money out of clubs, sure. They should have less money, of course. But precisely because they suck so much, and take money out of teams, etc., – clubs can only generally have sustained success if they have well valued contracts.
Over paying (by reference to the net monetary value of wins) players is a negative for fans and clubs who want wins: again (in case people pretend to miss the point) because owners are greedy and therefore payroll is limited.
Seeing Stereolab referenced in a trade post made this one a win for me.
That link with the playoff odds surprised me. Basically it says that the Mets and Phillies have the same odds of making the playoffs (21-18ish). That seems wrong to me, given the current standings, but alas I could be wrong as well.
strength of schedule mostly.
The fact that the Giants not only traded away Melancon and his terrible contract but got actual, live prospects for him is just black magic. I’d put them on the winners list on that one alone, but the part where they swapped two guys who have pitched somewhere in between frustratingly and terribly lately (Pomeranz, Black) for an FV45 should put them up on that list for sure.
I’m not sure if they got top value for Dyson, but I think they definitely wound up winners. And I understand that they probably should have sold Will Smith and Madison Bumgarner but it’s tough to do when teams keep trying to trade you their once-promising prospects who are recovering from Tommy John surgery. It’s not a good time to be a seller.
I find the flack that Toronto is getting for the Sanchez trade weird. Outside of his name he is not the same pitcher as three years ago. Velocity way down. No control which has always been an issue. Can’t stay healthy. No one is giving up quality prospects for Sanchez… I like Biagini but he’s nothing special. Serviceable arm with some years of control. Fisher is 25 and has 312 ABS over 112 games in 3 seasons. He will get a shot to play everyday now. Without knowing what else was being offered I think this is a smart move.
I think the bigger issue is that Toronto, by stubbornly holding onto Sanchez for years after the team’s window had closed and also refusing to turn him back into a reliever, turned a once-valuable trade commodity into someone who could return a probable 4th outfielder.
Yeah I would have to agree. Its like people haven’t paid attention to Sanchez outside of 2016. This is a soft contact guy with a BB% in the double digits, a very worrisome injury history who has also seen his best pitch evaporate. He is a guy you take a flyer on and see if you can transform him into a bullpen arm. The sale price on a guy like that is pretty low.
I actually think they made out ok getting Fisher.
The new baseballs caused issues for Sanchez that have taken him years to rectify. The past four starts, he seemed to have fixed it. With his pedigree, i think you hold him to regain his value.
Fisher could be a good player, but the Jays overpaid for a player that the Astros would likely lose for nothing (like Tyler White). Remember that Fisher is no longer a prospect, almost 26 years old. Even with the Jays, he’s not starting every day. Notice that with Gurriel DTD, Fisher was on the bench against a RH starter yesterday until Grichuk fouled a ball off his own face.
Edit: placed after wrong comment.
Haha. If it takes an 83 wRC+ player fouling a ball off his own face for you to get in the lineup, then you’re not a key piece.
he’s had success in his past two starts-the two best of the season for him-when he was going away from the sinker and going to the curveball. you gotta think he’ll continue to do that in houston and that the pitch will get better, as they usually do in houston
Personally, I find a lot of the teams doing nothing fine. Basically all the teams you mentioned could of done something, and could improve. But, playoffs are really a gamble. If you spend a lot of time online you always hear people ranting about the Dodgers are the new Braves, which to me just seems like simple variance. To me they have the best odds of making it to the WS of any team, and they have the best odds of making it there next year as well. Why do anything that takes you from 40% (making up numbers) h2h vs the Astros to 44% if it involves giving up a player that makes your team worse next year? That line of thinking makes no sense.
The same holds true for the Red Sox. They are playing for a 1 game playoff and they hold the best starter in the potential wcg (interesting to see two potential opponents load on rhb). If you look at relief pitcher performance year to year it’s almost literally a crapshoot. Brewers are average this year, Kimbrel is throwing 94, Jansen is average at best, Diaz has been awful etc. And who do they even have to trade?
The Yankees one is a bit of a headscratcher. While I think that some of the names thrown around wouldn’t be good fits (Bumgarner mainly) the price of Frazier for any reasonable starting pitcher (Wheeler, Boyd, Minor) seems like a no brainer when he comes from a position of abundance, has looked bad at defense and guys off the scrap heap (Tauchman) have been better at every single aspect of the game.
Apparently the D-Backs asked for Clarke Schmidt and Clint Frazier for Robbie Ray. I understand why the Yankees don’t want to give up Clarke Schmidt, but the steadfast refusal to make a deal if they don’t “win” it probably cost them here.
I don’t think the Yankees should be too attached to many of their prospects right now because aside from their teenaged center fielders none of their position players look like possible stars. And the pitchers are all pretty risky aside from Deivi Garcia, who is an extreme flyball pitcher. I’d hang onto the teenaged center fielders, Luis Gil, and be willing to discuss anyone else.
and who would the best starter be for the Red Sox? Chris Sale? Counting on him late in the season has been fools gold, and his April-July numbers this year are worse than they ever have been. July he had a 5.86 ERA and a 4.96 FIP. Watched Sunday’s game- and when guys got on base, it was total meatballs from him. And they could easily see Clevelend in the Wild Card which would mean quite possibly Kluber. Yeah, I think I’d take Kluber over Sale.
Dodgers really messed up. Their back end of the pen has cost them each of the last 2 years, and it’s poised to do so yet again this year. Making it to the World Series for them isn’t the goal any longer. It’s actually winning there. And they didn’t give themselves the best shot to do so.
My point is no reliever is going to add more than a couple percent.
With how relief pitching is such a disordinate part of October, I think it’s a whole hell of a lot more than just a couple percent. For the Dodgers to do absolutely nothing to help that out is just baffling. Like Jay said in the chat yesterday- “If Jansen recovers from, if Kelly keeps up what he’s been doing since June started, if Maeda dominates the way he did in late 2017, if Baez can recover form, if some of Ferguson, Stripling, and Floro can still help, and if Urias keeps doing what he’s been doing, then yes, I think the bullpen can hold together. Obviously, that is one big basket of ifs” For a team that is so good otherwise to be held hostage by this is remarkable.
Dodgers & Yankees fetishize prospects. Most of them won’t pan out, and certainly the B-level prospect that it takes to get a rental is not going to bankrupt anyone’s future, esp those with bigger contracts.
yeah saw list the other day of all the prospects Toronto dealt away 5 years ago now to get guys like David Price- and the only one who panned out was a throw in to Detroit(and not the main piece).
And where a guy like Vazquez is different is that he’s not a rental. Under control thru 2023 on a very reasonable contract.
I still don’t think Vazquez is worth May and Lux. Dodgers have basically hit on almost all of their top prospects last couple years, and 2B is a real need for them next season (possibly even this season) – they tried to deal a top prospect in an area where they had an abundance of (catcher) w/ Will Smith already being called up, but Pirates didn’t bite.
I’m ok w/ them not going for Vazquez (him being under control thru 2023 is not a premium – look at the top FIP lists for relievers in 2016 and 2017 and compare them to this year)
But I do have a huge problem w/ them not taking on fliers like Aaron Sanchez or others that could be had without giving up a top prospect.
be it Vazquez or someone- they needed to do something. I mean right now, they have like Jay said a ton of ifs back there- in what is probably the most important part of October baseball.
Definitely agreed on that. I’m just talking about the specifics of the Vazquez deal. I think they could’ve gotten someone like Greene or should’ve taken on a few of failed starter types instead of doing nothing, but at the same time what Pirates were asking for in Vazquez was just way too much
But they also have LOTS of guys with high upside potential – Gonsolin, Sadler, May among them. Jay acts like they need to win on ten different die rolls. I think it is more like they need to win on 5 or more die rolls when they’ve got a dozen dice to throw.
Over the last couple Octobers, out of the pen they’ve primarily used 4-5 RHPs and 2-3 LHPs per series. When they faced the Astros in the WS they leaned primarily on 3 RHPs and 2 LHPs with 3 other RHPs picking up a batter here or there. Houston leaned pretty heavily right-handed in its lineup and it still does to a lesser extent. OK, do they have 4-5 RHPs and 2-3 LHPs? Let’s see.
RHPs: Jansen, Kelly, Baez, Sadler, Maeda, Gonsolin, May, Floro
LHPs: Urías, Kolarek, Ferguson
A couple of the RHPs are unproven and Floro and Ferguson have been bad this year after being great last year. I think the “dice” here are Sadler, Gonsolin, May, Floro, and Ferguson. The others have proven they are good in the roles the teams uses them in. Out of those five “dice” listed, they need what like 2 or 3 to work out? I think the team likes those odds. Also, Baez and Kelly have been good against LHBs, if I recall correctly; the team lacked that in 2017, so maybe they don’t have as strong a need for LHPs as they did then.
Is their current roster bullet proof? By no means. But I think their chances are good, and certainly not bad enough to justify selling Lux and Ruiz for one stellar reliever.
well for one, one key guy that if he’s not right, they aren’t winning is Jansen. He’s not what he used to be. Also, of the dozen you mention- it’s very possible Maeda might have to be in the rotation if injuries to Hill or others make it where they need starters. Do you really want to put your fate in hands of guys like Sadler, Gonsolin, Floro, or some of the others? All the guys who have worked more than 9 innings in relief for the Dodgers have at least a 3.35 FIP. JT Chargois only guy with a sub 3 xFIP as well.
And Kolarek has a 4.54 FIP as well coming in along with a 3.96 xFIP. You say he was good last year. True, but this is his 3rd year. last year good, this year mediocre. What about 3rd year? 8.20 FIP/6.36 xFIP in 8.1 innings. Jury is still out on him to say the least.
The guys they have now aren’t even that far away from Vazquez – between Baez, Kelly (since he fixed something in early June), Sadler, and Kolarek, if they play the matchups right, their pen isn’t *that much* different from what it would be with Vazquez. So he certainly wasn’t worth Lux plus more guys graded 50 FV or higher.
Even so, why not take a chance on Giles? Sure, maybe his injury prevents him from pitching at all, but it should also decrease the prospect cost SIGNIFICANTLY, so why not just pick him up as a low floor high ceiling lottery ticket? Or…any of Dyson, Diekman, Hudson, or Anderson? Surely they would’ve been cheaper than Vazquez. And again, if they don’t work out oh well, the rest of the pen as currently constructed is actually MUCH better than sportswriters have been giving them credit for.
Seems like Jay has been nipping in the Marcus Stroman kool-aid. For 1.5 years of a 3-win pitcher, I might have expected a 50- headliner but getting a 45+ 19yo like Woods-Richardson and another 45 like Kay is pretty good. What evidence is there that a better deal would have presented itself in the next two days? His closest comp, Robbie Ray, another 3-win pitcher with 1.5 years of control didn’t move. Teams wanted aces like Bauer or wanted slightly-worse pitchers under long control like Zac Gallen or closers with no pedigree under long control like Nick Anderson.
I put the Marlins on the list of deadline winners. Acquiring 2 FV55’s is very difficult to do as teams value young players more and more. As I think about it more, for this reason, I also like the Padres acquiring Taylor Trammell for Reyes and Allen. The Reds now seem to be following their neighbors’ the Indians model of dominant starting pitching and patching up the offense with Luplow-types.
I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means.
What? I dump nips in my kool aid all the time! How else am I supposed to get through neighborhood parties in the suburbs?
I have seen the argument alot that the jays “should have waited” but im surprised to see it from a guy like Jay because it seems pretty silly.
Toronto probably spent weeks, if not longer, gauging interest in Stroman and likely had a very good idea what the market was and how likely any other potential offers were in the final days. The idea that some team was going to potentially come totally out of the blue at the 11th hour with a better offer after previously showing zero interest is pretty unrealistic IMO.
I guess they could have hedged and waited for the sake of waiting but if you dont anticipate any other offers coming in, why bother?
What’s the advantage of not waiting to see?
You get your guaranteed two 45-FV ‘spects instead of risking an arm injury or performance collapse in his contract year. He *is* a pitcher, after all.
Considering the underwhelming return, there is almost no risk in waiting. Pretty sure you could’ve got similar return in the offseason.
If you can’t get market value, don’t sell. There is always the off season. The Blue Jays acquired no players that we would expect to be an integral part of a championship team.
Stroman doesn’t return FV55’s. This is the best offer they could get. His value is symmetric with his remaining control: it goes down.
Apparently 50 FV pitching prospects are worth 2.3 WAR on average. The Blue Jays gave away 4.5 WAR from Stroman for a pitcher who should fall short of that and another who should fall well short. I don’t see how that’s pretty good, even given that Stroman is more expensive.
The Blue Jays seem to have a commitment to finding guys with a high probability of being Quad-A players. There’s a reason why everyone else is getting rid of them–they clog up space on the 40-man roster and you want to replace them eventually, anyway.
It’s true that they wouldn’t be getting much more than that for most of these guys, so I’m reluctant to ding them on anything other than the Stroman trade, and Woods Richardson is a pretty interesting prospect, but that was the single worst trade a single team made this deadline.
I think the A’s also probably come out of this as winners too. Somehow they traded a bunch of guys who probably won’t turn into anything for some good pitching depth.
I like the Greinke trade for Arizona too. I think that’s as close to a win-win deal as I’ve seen lately. I think we might be sleeping on Seth Beer a bit (although I also think that Bukauskas is pretty overrated at this point). I’m not sure how I feel about their other trades so I’m not sure I want to proclaim them “winners”, but that one I think was pretty good for them.
They certainly gave up nothing, and they certainly got back replacement level starters. It’s hard to get too excited for those types of moves.
I can’t agree that Tanner Roark, Homer Bailey, and Jake Diekman are replacement level. Looks like they’ve been worth about 3.5 wins collectively, about 2/3rds of the way through the season. Considering they gave up nothing of value, I think they did pretty well.
Agree these are better than replacement level. Whats more, the As really only need 5 innings per start out of them, due to deeper bullpen, which will make them even more effective than they were on their old teams (which pushed them to keep going after 5). Plus As have some pitchers returning from the IL (Estrada & Manaea).
Plus the Greinke deal gives the Dbacks a LOT more financial flexibility to address other needs next year. That contract hamstrung them from other deals they may have liked to have made (re-signing JD Martinez comes to mind, for example). At least they got pretty good value out of his performance for the money while they had him though.
Yeah, that’s the main benefit for the D-Backs–they get out from under the contract, which is actually totally fair value if you’re contending like the Astros and need a top pitcher, but it is an albatross if you’re not. This was their best chance to do it, and they did well–they’re still paying for some of it but they got fair value back in prospects for what they’re paying.
Have you checked the standings lately? How were the D-Backs not also a contending team with a need to keep their top pitcher?
I guess? But they are contending for that last wild card spot with three teams ahead of them and a record below .500. And they added Leake & Gallen to the rotation, so they did not exactly punt the season away.
Sure, but how is that going to help them win THIS season? They had a decent shot at the playoffs and then got rid of one of their best players. They probably could have sold off Greinke for a good return this offseason.
The 4th guy in the deal for Arizona, Josh Rojas, is a pretty interesting player too. He’s a Marwin Gonzlez -Zobrist-Brock Holt type guy who can play all over the field, hit, and steal bases. And he’s close to the majors now.
I can see why you can look on the surface at the Jays’ acquisitions and question what they got back, at least for Stroman and in the last deal with Houston. The returns for Hudson and Phelps seem fine considering what the Jays invested in those guys. There is potential there in both of the Stroman and Houston deals but I suspect the Mets deal was the best they were getting for Stroman. The Houston deal gives me pause though.
If the Jays are considered to have lost this deal, how do you feel about what the Padres paid for Trammell? He and Fisher are quite similar appearing prospects, with Trammell being younger and given more benefit for future growth. That said, he is struggling some at AA and has displayed little power at the moment. Fisher performed well at all levels in the minors and only stumbled once he got to the majors.
Fisher might be a good candidate for a career bounce with a change in scenery and new perspectives. Trammell might have more potential for growth but he is still at least a couple of years away and might also never amount to anything more than a reserve in the majors if he even makes it. Doesn’t what the Padres paid seem much greater for the risk they are taking in getting only a single AA prospect back in Trammell?
Fisher is a few days short of 26 years old. He’s not a prospect any more. Trammell is WAY younger, not quite 22 years old. If Trammell was striking out a ton, I’d be worried, but his OBP is still about .350.
Fisher is about to fall off the Astros 40 man roster, could be had cheap. He is out of options next year; the Jays will option him if he has a bad spring & could lose him on waivers. Then the trade becomes a pure donation to Houston.
Padres can wait for years for Trammell to figure it out. Jays can’t wait on Fisher.
Can we restart the conversation about Tampa Bay and their endgame? They had a huge amount of talent they needed to consolidate, but mostly they traded mid-level position player prospects for relief prospects, plus the Jesus Sanchez trade actually split value between Richards and Anderson. They have a ton of smart people, which is how they wound up with so much talent in their farm system, but I don’t think they have thought through how they turn that into championship (or even winning the division).
From what I gathered regarding the Yankees. The Blue Jays just asked for Gleybor Torres straight up and refused to budge. Mets asked for a kings ransom for Wheeler, Grienke wouldn’t waive the no trade clause to go to NYY, and DBacks wanted Grienke level prospects for Ray from the Yankees, Tigers asked for both Torres and Garcia for Boyd. Honestly, I don’t blame them for not doing it. If anything a few years down the road [maybe even next year if Garcia keeps obliterating the minors it would be looked at a plus. I’m curious if the Yankees in house option of fixing the rotation is to have dual 5th starters. Both Sevvy and Montgomery are slated to return in the coming weeks, plus Loasiaga, and Garcia could be a potential September call up, or middle august pending on how badly they need it. There’s plenty of options there. But I am curious if Sevvy and Monty would both act as “openers” in a sense every 5th day to get their arm strength back up. in essence with Voit’s potential sports hernia surgery. The problem could actually fix itself to clear up roster room for them.
The D-Backs wanted both Clarke Schmidt and Clint Frazier for Robbie Ray. I like Clarke Schmidt, but that’s a fair deal, and the Yankees have more than enough depth in the system to compensate for Schmidt if they wanted to swap in someone else.
The Blue Jays asked for Deivi Garcia, which I don’t blame the Yankees for turning down, but that’s not that far from being fair.
Maybe an opener?
Until Garcia figures out how to handle the juiced ball at AAA level, he likely won’t be going anywhere. His AAA stats are horrendous (his K/9 has plummeted while his hits/9 and WHIP has sky-rocketed). And his BB/9 at all levels this season is somewhat of a concern.
It’s easy to speculate what was asked behind closed doors, but considering what the Jays ultimately accepted for Stroman, I think the Yankees could have made a deal here. The Mets are now getting nothing for Wheeler, so betcha he was available cheap in the final hours.
Clint Frazier would pry lose pitching from somewhere. Wasted in Triple A.
Since Monty isn’t even rehabbing yet, I wouldn’t hang your hopes on him too much. He’s still just over 12 mos from surgery.
I think the Yankees blew it.
The Astros were smart to make the big move at the deadline so the Yankees had no time to react. They got outfoxed.
The real winner of this year’s trade deadline is Stereolab!
They got me through it, for sure!
The world is divided into those paying attention and those who don’t:
THOSE PAYING ATTENTION: We accept all, all, all the research showing the playoffs aren’t totally a crapshoot, but pretty much are. So the Dodgers have no business trading any prospect, rather keep them for future regular seasons when they might be needed as either players or then-trade bait. The Yankees have no business trading for any SP who they don’t want to go 6 innings in a playoff game, and also have no business trading off a real good prospect or multiple prospects for such. The Astros had no business trading multiple prospects for Greinke, other than it doesn’t much look like those traded prospects were all that good in their case. Given the volatility of bullpens, including each and every one of the guys the Braves traded for, they gave up stuff they’ll sure wish they still had this time next year, and next, and possibly next. For guys who project to accomplish pretty little going forward, and each of whom if you put into a tied 9th inning of a playoff game, you’ll really wish you actually had someone better to put in there.
THOSE WHO AREN’T: Each one of you. Also Jay. You just want ‘action’ this time of season, so pretend that all the playoff randomness research that exists really doesn’t exist.
The world is divided into people, like most of the commentariat at fangraphs, who understand (at least intuitively) how stochastic processes work…and those, like Richie and most of the rest of the world, who don’t realize what “randomness” means here.
Yeah, hold onto those great amazing Blue Chip prospects, like Jose Urias, now middle inning RP, or Tyler White, just traded for cash.
Most of the great prospects don’t amount to anything, but at least let the non-contenders get something back.
Hoarding prospects while a championship is up for grabs is just dumb strategy.
I cannot think of the last championship team that stood pat at the deadline. Can you win a race by jogging while the others are going all out? Are you that much ahead of the pack?
It’s very clearly an editorial decision by fangraphs to be more ‘win now’ friendly and to favor prospects less- this stance has broader appeal and be industry friendly.
See all the Meg, Rian articles on how baseball is not about roster construction or shrew asset management, its about Aaron Judge smashing the ball etc.
“Oddly, I get the impression that the fact that they obtained Stroman, who has one-plus year of club control remaining, for two pitchers who are viewed merely as 45 FV prospects may have undercut the offers they received on their pair. ”
Can someone please explain the mechanism by which the terms of one trade could possibly affect the terms of a subsequent trade.
Direction?
What teams get offered will vary by their perceived needs and direction.
If the Yankees come asking for mlb pitching their negotiating position and the offers they get will be affected by the active staff as well as recent deals. That will reflect their need.
The same applies to direction: a team looking to contend is going to get different offers than a rebuilding team and a rebuilding team gets different offers if they are perceived as looking for MLB-ready or near-term assets vs a team looking for younger high ceiling talent.
Track record and recent deals also inform a team’s valuation system: how they value pitching vs offense, tools vs performance, ceiling vs floor.
It all changes with time so recency weighs heavily.
It’s mind reading of a sort.
Look to the recent piece here on the Miami approach to rebuilding: they prefer higher ceiling players, even if riskier, to lower ceiling higher certainty guys. They aren’t just looking for competent major leaguers, they are looking for big time stars. Dealing with them you don’t offer up a mid rotation prospect but a boom or boost tools guy. They don’t say that but their trades do.
Actually, in the case of the Mets, it’s kind of easy.
METS: 50 fv + 45 fv for Wheeler
OTHER TEAM: Well, we like Stroman better, I’ll give you that for Stroman instead.
METS: We want more than that for Stroman! He’s an ace with 1 more year control.
OTHER TEAM: Well, we give you that for Stroman, you still come out ahead. Cmon! So obviously can’t pay that for Wheeler.
METS: D’oh!!
Paying anything more than what the Mets paid for Stroman to the Mets gives them an instant win, but constrains the value of Wheeler, esp. since its the same team. And Stroman has actually been better than Thor this year, and to a contender, this year counts greatly, so Stroman also resets Thor’s value.
I think it was astute to grab Stroman off the market quickly before it adversely effected their ability to trade pitching at a premium, but they will likely have to wait for December to reap their dividends.
…inexcusable not to get something for Wheeler. Maybe they make QO?
They kind of have to. But given that there weren’t very many FV45 prospects available in the compensation pick round–I think it was limited to Goss, Malone, and Misner, who were all gone pretty quickly–I think you are almost certainly better off trading him rather than waiting for the QO. The comp pick seems like it’s valued about at a 40+ prospect level.
How about the selling teams who overpriced their players and caused all those non-deals we’re complaining about? For example, the Mets needed to lower their asking price for Wheeler to a reasonable level for an OK rental starter to make a deal, but they didn’t budge on their asking price, so now they get nothing for him. (If they’re stupid enough to give him a qualifying offer, he’ll probably take it and force them to overpay for his services next year.) Those mistakes may wind up costing those teams more in the long run than the contending teams who wouldn’t bite on their offers.
The Mets and Giants are in hot streaks and are still more or less relevant. So they gambled.
There’s more to “going for it” than a guaranteed WS appearance. “Going for it” can be just playing meaningful games all the way. And filling seats along the way.
The teams are also businesses and as businesses their goal is to make money, not just news.
And sometimes the weird moves pay off.
Look at Cleveland. They played four months holding auditions for the OF, lost three of the better starters to injury and ineffectiveness, the allstar 3b lost his bat, and didn’t even try to keep the allstar lf. After two months they were 11 games out of 1st. Much of it due to the “need” to save money. Yet here we are, with two months to go and they suddenly have a respectable OF, a respectable IF (Ramirez found his bat), the backup catcher turned starter is having a career year, and the entire pitching staff is doing well-to-well enough. They have the first wild card and are three games out of first. On a pace for 94 wins+ and they might still get better.
All despite questionable moves to save money and, above all, remain relevant.
They could have gone for broke, get FAs, trade prospects, and bet everything in december. Or they could have tanked and cashed in for a rebuild. Instead, they went cheap…and long.
Odds are they’ll now be relevant this year and next and maybe 21 until Lindor leaves.
People have been complaining about teams going for deep rebuilds so why gripe when they play for attendance? There are worse things than giving fans as many good games as possible. And sometimes a team will surprise you, and not just in the movies.
The Giants, yes, but the Mets are pretty much already out of it. Unless a miracle occurs, they won’t be playing any meaningful games in September. They should’ve sold Wheeler at the very least. Extra prospects are much more valuable than the slight attendance boost they’d receive by finishing slightly closer to a .500 record.
Did the non-contenders overvalue their products or did the contenders overvalue their prospects?
The Mets are reluctant to trade with their division rivals (whom they could realistically overtake) and their market rivals, the Yankees.
But looking at the market overall, and the return on players that did get moved, I think the big teams that didn’t make a move are the problem. The Yankees were happy to get friggin Gleybur Torres for two months of Chapman, but now the shoe is on the other foot, they won’t move even minor prospects for a SP.
Look, prospects are just money. Set aside the true elite players, you can get prospects from teams just by taking extra contract in a trade, like Arizona taking some of Greinke’s contract or the Melancon deal. The Yankees refused to part with even B grade prospects to improve their playoff chances, despite the millions they get from their fanbase. Their fans have a right to be pissed.
The brawl was actually Puig’s first act as an Indian, which is more quintessentially Puig than anything I could have made up!
There’s also the bright red hair.
Now Lindor isn’t tbe only one with…noticeable hair.