Winners and Losers From the 2026 Trade Deadline

Lon Horwedel and Wendell Cruz, Imagn Images

Every year, baseball teams cram a whole season of trade activity and rumors into about four days of mayhem. This year was no exception, and there was an even bigger prize than normal. The best player available at the deadline isn’t always one of the best players in baseball; it’s often merely the best player nearing free agency on a team that isn’t competing. But this year, one of the best few pitchers on the planet fell into that category, and a broad cast of would-be contenders saw opportunities to add some juice to their rosters too. This isn’t a comprehensive list. Give me another few weeks, and I’ll have more nuanced opinions about everyone’s actions. But one day after the sound and the fury, here are the trends that most stood out to me.

Winner: The Dodgers
Duh. They got Tarik Skubal. Analysis doesn’t always have to be complicated. The Dodgers gave up two Top 100 prospects in the deal, but they’re accumulating top prospects through good drafting and development faster than they can spend them in trades and major league playing time, so that’s not a huge cost. They even get the ancillary benefit of preventing their opponents from trading for Skubal, which is non-neglible.

The Dodgers have made three big acquisitions in the past year: Skubal, Kyle Tucker, and Edwin Díaz. That’s the top available starter, hitter, and reliever (in expectation, at least) over that time period, whether in free agency or trade. The Dodgers know that they’re good now, and they’re pressing the advantage at every turn. That killer instinct puts them in great position to add a third straight championship. Not that they’re favorites, because the baseball playoffs are fueled by randomness, but they’re about as favored as it’s possible to be.

It’s not just that the Dodgers have the most money, though of course that helps. And it’s not just that they have the best infrastructure and development, though that helps too. Andrew Friedman also seems to be a good game player. Forget NPVs and future expected WAR and the cost efficiency of free agency contracts; Friedman has his foot on the gas because there will never be a better time to go for it than now. They have late-peak Shohei Ohtani. They have peak Yoshinobu Yamamoto. They have a gaudy collection of older superstars backing up those two. Wasting this window would be a mistake, and Friedman simply isn’t letting that happen.

Not everyone would operate in the same way. Lots of teams cry sustainability when they’re competing. But the Dodgers are trying to lift the hunk of metal every year. It’s admirable. Can they keep it going? In the long run, I have no idea. Changes to the game’s economic system are coming, one way or another. That sweet, sweet TV money is getting chopped up and redistributed. Ohtani isn’t getting any younger. Freddie Freeman can only play like this for so long (well, okay, this one’s less certain — the man is ageless). Nothing lasts forever. But while the window is still open, Friedman is doing everything he can to squeeze more championships out of his resources.

Winner: Pearl Clutchers
It was also a good deadline for people who like to complain about the injustice of all. The hand-wringing that ensued after the Dodgers made a trade would make you think that they’d greased the palms of a security guard to sneak into Detroit and literally steal Skubal from the Tigers. I promise you, there’ll be plenty of time to get upset about the state of parity and labor relations in baseball. We’re going to have an entire winter to talk through these same arguments over and over again. There’s going to be no major league baseball going on — none at all! — and both parties will be threatening to keep it that way indefinitely unless the other side agrees to their terms.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

But right now, there’s baseball on. Every team in the playoff race can win the World Series. The games haven’t been played yet! Clearly, a great number of teams think they can make some noise in the postseason, or there wouldn’t have been so many Top 100 prospects flying around. We all get it. The economic system in baseball is going to be a hot topic this winter. But now? Now I want to go watch good teams try to win it all.

Winner: Patient Sellers
Some of the early deals this deadline made me think that the buyers had the upper hand. The Cubs got Kevin Gausman for a relative pittance. Taylor Ward, a righty outfielder in a market completely lacking in that combination, brought back three fringey relief prospects. The Skubal sweepstakes didn’t go completely bonkers. It was a slow buildup.

But as sellers held the line, bids started to increase. The Red Sox gave up two Top 100 prospects and another interesting arm for Adley Rutschman. The Brewers sent a Top 100 prospect to the rival Cardinals for two rental players, the Milwaukee front office equivalent of a bender. The Red Sox cut bait on Marcelo Mayer for relief help. The Cubs decided that they needed more pitching – even after getting Gausman, David Peterson (earlier), and Braxton Garrett – and sent out a Top 100 prospect of their own for Clay Holmes.

Not every trade followed this pattern of better returns as the deadline approached. The Nats held onto Foster Griffin until the last minute and then had to settle for four marginal prospects instead of just keeping him. But I think the shape of it makes sense. While plenty of teams seemed happy to go into the deadline with a halfway approach, offloading a few pending free agents or adding around the edges, there weren’t many motivated sellers, teams that knew they were out of the race and had valuable players to move. That meant that as the clock ticked down, the negotiating leverage swung.

Loser: Half Measures
A few teams tried to have their cake and eat it too this deadline, playing one role partway or trying to switch between buying and selling. For the most part, I thought this group missed the mark. The Blue Jays traded Gausman and Daulton Varsho, but then they acquired José Soriano and Josh Smith. They traded Jeff Hoffman, a key reliever under contract through next year, for three guys who aren’t likely to help them in the near future. They acquired Jameson Taillon, albeit for basically nothing, to finish out the 2026 season.

That’s trying to thread an incredibly thin needle, and I’m not sure they accomplished it. Between moving near-majors prospects for far-off ones and trading from players with team control, their 2027 squad feels only a little better to me today than it did yesterday. I think I would have preferred for them to just pick a lane and go that way, even if that lane was boring. I just think they fell victim to Fancy Play Syndrome, the nagging idea in the back of your head that says “Do this, it’d be so cool.”

To a lesser extent, the Diamondbacks, Braves, and Astros fell into this group for me too. All three added at the deadline, but all of them added lethargically. The Diamondbacks are barely holding onto a playoff spot and have one of the worst rotations in baseball, but their only addition was Lars Nootbaar. The Braves look playoff-bound, but their rotation could use some oomph, and their lineup is a bat or two short of fearsome. Tyler Mahle and Lane Thomas don’t exactly address those issues. Maybe Chris Sale can do it all himself, but well, maybe he can’t. And the Astros might just not have had enough of a farm system left to feel like they could make more moves, but that didn’t stop the Padres, who found themselves in a similar spot and still made moves to bolster their rotation. I like Varsho’s fit in Houston, but I don’t think 2027 is going to look better for the Astros than 2026, so I would have tried harder to improve the current team if I decided to buy.

Winner: Craig Breslow’s Sudden Aggression
I’m not sure how Boston’s season is going to turn out, but it’s been a delight to watch as a neutral observer. The Sox made industry standard, consultant-approved team building moves all winter, trying to stack up accumulations in value and Build Sustainably Through Agile Thinking, or whatever buzzword you’d call it these days. To be clear, I liked those moves. I wrote about them this winter. But they were based on playing the odds, taking a long view, trying to make improvements while minding the cost. Then things started to fall apart. The Sox started as cold as possible. Breslow fired Alex Cora and most of his staff before the end of April. The front office drew plenty of criticism both for the way they handled the firings and the timing. Breslow’s focus on analytics, his team construction, probably his Dunkin’ order of choice, it all came under scrutiny. But July saw them go 21-4, spurred by a 15-game win streak. Suddenly they found themselves in a playoff spot and with a good farm system, and Breslow said screw it, I can go get Adley Rutschman, why wait?

The first sign that the Sox were going to be aggressive buyers was the Connelly Early/Curtis Mead trade, which is a good avatar for all of Boston’s consequential moves this deadline. In terms of pure surplus value, I like the Nats’ side of it. But from the perspective of trying to be good this year, the Sox won it for sure, even if Mead broke his hand right afterwards and ruined their plans.

The deal for Rutschman was their big swing, and while it might be another overpay, only the Dodgers added a better player at the deadline, and the Red Sox even get Adley next year too. Likewise, I was shocked to see Mayer moved for a reliever, albeit a solid lefty, but clearly the Red Sox had had enough of looking at the little cell in their spreadsheet that told them how valuable Mayer was to the team, and decided to get out while the getting was still good, improving the team in the process.

We might look back on these trades in a few years and say that Boston overpaid. Certainly, the industry consensus leans that way now, and I agree. But I’m not all that confident, because I’m not all that confident in my evaluations of the 10 players the Red Sox dealt. I am sure that they made themselves better this year, and that’s the point of this exercise. You do all the boring, accumulative stuff in the slow times so that you can move fast and break things in the heat of a playoff race. I find myself in the strange place of agreeing with Craig Breslow’s strategy (go for it) while being unsure of his tactics (at what cost?), after his entire tenure until now had been marked by my thinking the opposite (great short-term tactics, but not enough long-term plan).

Undecided: The Phillies
I was ready to crown the Phillies a winner when they traded for Luis Arraez early in the day. Is it a great fit? Not even a little. Did they pay up? They sure did. But think of it this way: In two years, this Phillies team won’t be as good as they are now. They probably won’t be good, period. Their 26-man roster only has four players under the age of 28. More talent in 2028 isn’t going to do them much good. They’re contending for the playoffs this year, though; a win in 2026 is incredibly valuable to them. Adding Arraez and figuring out where he goes later? A great recognition of that tactic.

But uh, not like this. After the Arraez deal, the Phils didn’t keep hammering. Their outfield was weak, but they didn’t add any outfielders (no, Colby Thomas and Kameron Misner don’t count). Instead, they’re shifting Bryce Harper to right field, and I hate it. Maybe this will somehow work out. Maybe Harper will turn back the clock. But you’ll never convince me that this is a good move in a vacuum. The injury risk alone makes this an unpalatable decision, and that’s before considering how playing a guy who figures to be one of the worst defensive outfielders in the business will affect Philly’s pitching.

It would be one thing to shoehorn in an out-of-position slugger to get an extra elite bat in the lineup. The Phillies have been the masters of this over the years; their Kyle Schwarber/Nick Castellanos/Harper outfield trio was the best example. But this time, they’re doing it to get Alec Bohm’s bat in the lineup. Bohm is hitting .226/.283/.362! He’s a career 100 wRC+ hitter, and he’s playing meaningfully worse than that at the moment. Why not just get an outfielder for some nominal cost and play him in right? What, he’s going to hit worse than Bohm has?

Winner: The Giants
It’s been an absolutely miserable season in San Francisco. The record, the vibes, the controversies, the feuding with a beloved local radio station – as an SF resident, I can tell you that the mood here is not good. But this deadline, the Giants did a great job of turning some useful but hardly overwhelming players into a big accumulation of prospect talent.

Trading Arraez brought back fast riser Ramon Marquez, an exciting pitching prospect. I’ve already mentioned Mayer, a great acquisition for a reliever (Erik Miller) with nasty stuff, indifferent command, and durability issues. Heliot Ramos had been trending down for a few years after his breakout 2024, but he’s a righty outfield bat, so the Giants flipped him for a good return anyway. They turned Robbie Ray into two interesting prospects.

At the start of the 2025 season, we had the Giants 27th in our Farm System Rankings. After this deadline, we have them up to 10th, and this despite graduating Bryce Eldridge, their top prospect. The present hasn’t been good in the Buster Posey era, but there’s reason to believe that the future is bright, or at least brighter. This was a much-needed win for a beleaguered front office.

Winner: Animal Spirits
I’m not quite sure what “animal spirits” are, but John Maynard Keynes coined the term to describe the collective instincts that make the market behave in irrational ways, and I’ve used it inappropriately ever since I learned it to describe anything in my life governed by collective mood. This year’s deadline woke the spirits for sure. When the dust finally settled, 10 Top 100 prospects had changed hands.

Do these guys have warts, questions to answer, risks to their profiles? Of course. But that hasn’t always stopped teams from overvaluing their own best guys and standing pat even when they could really use a boost. The expanded playoffs make for fewer sellers, but they haven’t always made for more motivated buyers. This year, good minor leaguers were available for the right return, though.

I can’t prove it, but I think that the ominous clouds on the labor horizon might have helped. Even if they don’t admit it consciously, team decision-makers surely have that scary cliff looming over their thoughts. They might not have any work to do this winter. In the extreme case, they might not have any work to do next year, either, and the way they do their work could be set to change meaningfully. Competing in 2026 looks a little bit more interesting when you don’t know what 2027 will be like.

Whether it was that or something totally unrelated, this deadline delivered. I didn’t even have room to talk about all the decisions that fascinated me – the Tigers, Nats, Marlins, and Orioles planting the flag as sellers when teams with similar records went the other way is intriguing, I just wasn’t sure whether to put them in the winners or losers camp. I’m exhausted, as it should be after a trade deadline, but I’m exhilarated, too, because this was a good one.





Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.

220 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
hayz11Member since 2021
10 days ago

I’m very much with you on the Red Sox moves. I think the Rutschman deal was a clear overpay in a vacuum, but I think you can point to external factors (same division tax, preventing the Yankees from getting him) and understand why the cost was so high.

I like how Breslow mentioned this was about being aggressive in making the team better now, not trying to “win” the trade by letting the market come to them. That’s gotten him and Bloom in trouble previously, where you get missed opportunities and half measures. Here he sees an opportunity to make a move in a weak AL and I think that makes sense.

Last edited 10 days ago by hayz11
RyanMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  hayz11

I agree completely. It’s a welcome change of pace from past years where team management didn’t know if they were coming and going. The overpays this year (in terms of surplus value) are not so over the top as to be incontrovertible. And you just have to look at the Orioles to see what prospect-hugging can get you. I’d rather see the Red Sox actually try to improve than to hope their prospects and old friend Payroll Flexibility get them next year.

hopbittersMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  hayz11

Agreed, it was a very solid move any way you look at it.

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
10 days ago
Reply to  hayz11

Let’s be real here: the Yankees didn’t have the capital to actually get Rutschman. The Rays — maybe. The Yanks? Absolutely not.

Paul SporerFanGraphs Staff
9 days ago

They absolutely did.

The Ghost of Stephen Drews BatMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  Paul Sporer

They are never trading Lombard

darren
9 days ago

Right. but they could have if they wanted to.

MoMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  hayz11

It certainly seems like a haul of prospects, but remember the goal is to win, not hoard prospects. Two years ago, the Red Sox had one of the best systems and their top 10 prospects were:

Mayer
Anthony
Teel
Bleis
Montgomery
Campbell
E. Rodriguez
Paez
Perales
Alcantara

How many of those players would be helpful to the Red Sox right now? Anthony (if he was healthy), Teel (if healthy), and Montgomery. My point is that prospect lists turn over quickly and many prospects don’t work out.

Shalesh
10 days ago
Reply to  Mo

Prospects are hoarded because they represent future wins. It’s fine to forego future wins for fair deals for current wins. Boston’s deals for Mead, Rutschman, and the Giants’ reliever were massive overpays. Rutschman’s on a 3.1 fwin pace this year. Ben Clemens was saying how he was degrading catchers in his trade value series. Then 1.5 years of Rutschman returns a top 50 trade value while 2.5 years of Jose Soriano, a 3-win pitcher, goes for only an FV50 and FV45, iirc.

Seems like the Red Sox have an owner-agent problem where Breslow either thinks he won’t be back next year so he lit future wins on fire so he could go out in a blaze of glory this year. Or maybe he’s like Dave Dombrowski used to be and maybe still is in knowing when the industry is overrating his prospects. Still, I would have liked my favorite team to be on the opposite side of every Red Sox deal.

I think the Phillies giving up an FV50 for expiring Arraez was a massive overpay. And the Dodgers getting Skubal for a haul that might have been enough to net 2.5 years of Reid Detmers was nutty too, but they’re far and away the best team in the league at constantly replenishing their prospect pipeline so I suppose it works for them.

Brock244
10 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

To be fair, the redsox have been excellent are replenishing their pitching prospects. Who knows if they can keep it up, but their confidence in their pitching dev probably allows them to make this move

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  Brock244

The Red Sox certainly made judicious selections of Early and Tolle and developed both of them quickly and effectively. Then they made a one-for-one trade of pitching prospects, Perales out and Bennett in and this is looking very promising as well. Maybe they are wizards who can spin straw into gold but this type of thinking can lead down a treacherous path. Is it confidence or hubris that it is the coaching and not the player that is the reason for success?

opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

I’ve been saying that right now, with this dev staff, and drafts focused on pitchers, that the Red Sox are good at developing interesting pitchers. So I’m happy it seems like Breslow is trading some of them and keeping enough around in case things change later

fincampbell05Member since 2025
9 days ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

I don’t think it’s hubris when the ways they’ve improved pitchers are so obviously coachable. Tolle was sitting 91-92 in college. Changing his mechanics and making him sit 96 is not something to do with the talent of the player. Velo boosts of Early, Eyanson, Valera, etc. as well. They add pitches, they improve control and command, and they do it with all types of pitchers. Feels extremely repeatable.

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
9 days ago
Reply to  fincampbell05

Eh, it is until it isn’t. I think it being “not something to do with the talent of the player” is a short-sighted way of thinking. Not every pitcher throwing 91-92 in college can throw 96 with improved mechanics. There’s where the scouting part comes in — and I think there’s going to continue to be less low-hanging fruit, so to speak, as more teams have success with “pop-up” arms. Everyone’s looking for their Skubal or their Schlittler.

opifijiklMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Future wins! All these future wins and only 26 spots on a roster. How many of these future wins are a Willson Contreras, Sonny Grey, Adley Rutschman, or Roman Anthony? And would a team have enough roster spots to play them all?

I think that at some point you need to concentrate those future wins into real wins, otherwise you end up with a massive farm system of 35+ FV prospects and having to trade your Cornerstone (and former 70-FV prospect) to a rival after two years of competing like the Orioles. It’s not like the Orioles didn’t try to make those trades either, they just weren’t accepted. Maybe they needed to be a little less rational? Breslow wanted his stud catcher and chose to overspend to get him.

The Red Sox have a great rotation, they have a great bullpen, their hitting has been OK too. I’d expect most players and fans would want to see the MLB team shore up its weaknesses and try for a playoff push instead of saying “well, we couldn’t win the trade so we didn’t make it. We’ll just go to the playoffs with a gaping hole in our lineup.”

I think everyone overrates the prospects and future wins to a degree. It’s so fun to do, and I am guilty of it myself. The latest prospect valuation table from Ben’s July 2 article has the expected total WAR for a 55FV pitcher as 7, a 50 hitter as 7, and a 45 pitcher as 1.6. Go back and look at how often prospects actually pan out. Some will, for sure, but the chance that all three do is low. Adley’s annual WAR is something like 4+ in his career so far.

Last edited 10 days ago by opifijikl
JSJohnSmithAnon
9 days ago
Reply to  opifijikl

You aren’t getting 2022-2023 Adley, so his career stats are basically irrelevant.

Brock244
9 days ago

Suprisingly underlying data is actually just as good as it was earlier in his career. 2nd best xWOBA and xSLG of career. Best hard hit% of career. Contact and PD rates in career norms

I think the sox are banking on him being much better than his current numbers. Now, I dont think he plays that many games per year, but his data is nice

Last edited 9 days ago by Brock244
JSJohnSmithAnon
9 days ago
Reply to  Brock244

True, though he has been a noticeable xWOBA underperformer for his career. Pretty small sample too and you have to factor in his injured wrist at least a little bit.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
8 days ago
Reply to  Brock244

Back in my college days the football coach had a sign over his door, “What you do speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say”. That is why I have always relied far more on performance, what I actually see, rather than what I am told I am supposed to see. At this time Rutschman fits that profile almost exactly. What I see now is a far lesser version of the player who turned the Orioles franchise around in 2022 despite the numbers trying to put a different spin on it. It is easy make a couple of minor changes to the coach’s sign and say “What Adley is doing doesn’t look like what the data says he should be doing”. The lines have clearly been drawn here. It seems that the commenters are about evenly split on whether the Red Sox made a very good deal or whether they made a huge overpay for a declining player. All we can do is wait and see.

opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago

I can dream!

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
9 days ago

That is the core of this debate. I have serious doubts that anything resembling 2022-2023 Adley still exists. This is a very clear point of contention on this site and all we can do is wait and see which side is correct.

Shalesh
9 days ago
Reply to  opifijikl

Expected WAR on prospects is already built in to trade values, so you quoting it is irrelevant. 1.5 years of Rutschman is worth a 50 and a 45. Maybe there were multiple bidders and his reputation is huge, so maybe you go to 2 50’s. But a 55, 50, 45, 40 and Narváez? Marlins wouldn’t take this plus Mayer and maybe a bit more (Early) for SS Otto Lopez?

Weird to see people on an analytics site argue it’s ok to throw away value because there’s a temporary surplus. And they’re going for it!

But here we are

Brock244
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

The O’s did very well, and the sox overpaid. But also, Breslow is probably one of the most data driven dudes in the sport

I dont think this trade was about surplus value, it was about trading excess (that maybe they didn’t internally value as high as concensus, especially the pitchers) for a long term core piece at a postion of need + a better chance at a long playoff run

My take is you can always sign Adley, then if you really need to, pay down the contract and recoup what you gave up.

Last edited 9 days ago by Brock244
opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Brock244

That’s what the Mets did right a couple years ago when their all-in didn’t work. Added a bunch of prospects. Not sure what happens next or if I should finish the connection!

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Brock244

I’m not convinced that they did overpay. Eyanson is only one year removed from being a third round draft pick. From the games that I have watched, he has rather poor command of his fastball and doesn’t miss many bats with it. Yesavage is a frequent comparison because of the arm angle, but his fastball is substantially more effective.

fincampbell05Member since 2025
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Yesavage also isn’t good lol

opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

I mean, aren’t we discussing trade value and the huge return for Adley? I think it’s fair to look at the pieces of it, like expected WAR.

FanGraphs is what you make of it! I love the analytics, and the statistics, but I also love the Laurila interviews, the ZiPS projections, and articles about how players change something about their approach, etc.

Analytics are great, but they are a tool in the toolbox of teams, and DON’T capture everything. The orioles have great analytics people, just like the Red Sox. It’s hard to just pull one over another team nowadays.

The goal is to win the World Series. If you need to give up some potential future players, or overpay to meaningfully increase your chances, you need to think about doing it! Future problems can be dealt with later, in various ways.

Also why would they offer that package for otto when catcher is a huge hole? Wouldn’t the future value of that be a bit wonky cuz next year he’d have to split time with Arias so they could give him a fair shot?

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  opifijikl

“Analytics are great, but they are a tool in the toolbox of teams, and DON’T capture everything.” My argument has always been that numbers (analytics) can’t see. We have all seen far too many 55FV or even higher prospects bust and 40’s become stars. I get upset when a player far outperforms his ranking or FV and he gets it from all sides with claims as to why he can’t be actually doing what he is actually doing. Early is one of the latest examples and, to a lesser extent, Bennett. Oh, they only throw 93 but can a number measure deception, release point or whether a batter looks uncomfortable when facing these pitchers. Is it possible to recognize that special something? I think the answer is an easy yes and I say this because if the Red Sox had given Arias away before finding out if he is Lindor, which I think he might be, it would be unconscionable.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  opifijikl

Future problems can be dealt with later, in various ways.

Like what?

opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  airforce21one

I don’t know! That’s why I’m doing custom kitchen deliveries and not running a ball team.

I was thinking about stuff like if there is a need next year for x player, they can either trade or sign one, or if they don’t have enough prospects, trade an established player for some. It’s not like the entire farm system is barren now, or like the Sox don’t have money.

MoMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

If the Sox didn’t include all those prospects, the trade would not have happened. So what does it even mean that this was an overpay? You don’t know what teams were asking for other players. The Sox could make this trade or keep their prospects and not get rutschman.

And I’m sorry, but MLB teams are too sophisticated to trade extra prospects for ‘reputation’ nowadays.

fincampbell05Member since 2025
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

This would be a wild overpay for Lopez, who is very obviously spiking a career year and is probably a worse player than Rutschman

Shalesh
9 days ago
Reply to  fincampbell05

Lopez is under control for 3.5 years compared to 1.5 for Rutschman. He put up fwar of 2.5 and 2.3 in his last two seasons and is on pace for 5.8 fwar this year. Maybe he’s having a career year, but I’d much rather have 3.5 years of him than 1.5 years of Rutschman.

opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

But you need to look at it through the context of the whole team and trying to round it out. Yes, arias is not a sure thing and Otto has been playing well, but the Sox have a hole at catcher too. If they want to give arias a fair shot to get the most out of him, they probably want him playing as short stop.

Seems like they shored up an obvious weakness and are ok taking the chance that Arias doesn’t pan out

Shalesh
9 days ago
Reply to  opifijikl

That’s fine. I think Arias will be good. (Only because I think FV60’s will be good, not because I **know** anything.)

MLBTR had Boston pursuing all of Neto, Abrams, and Lopez, so I brought up Lopez as an alternative to Rutschman.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  opifijikl

I am a prospect guy. I watch more minor league games than I do major league ones and I spend much more of my time than I should analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of prospects considering that no one pays me to do that anymore.

I couldn’t agree with you more about prospects being overvalued. I’ve started doing video analysis of the players Baltimore received in return, and while each of them has obvious potential they also each have a significant flaw that prevents me from being completely confident in any of them being significant contributors at the major league level.

opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Thanks! I added the line about the orioles trying to consolidate and trade their prospects for stars just for you.

Brock244
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Whats Eyanson’s flaw? I thought he looked like a good bet to be a #3 starter. I dont think he has #1 upside. But feels like a very high floor starter, moderate ceiling starter

Last edited 9 days ago by Brock244
jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Brock244

For me, a high floor starter needs to have at least an average command and Eyanson’s is below average. He doesn’t spot his fastball very well, while he has a tendency to bury the curve and hang the slider. The fastball doesn’t miss bats reliably either, which knocks him down another half grade in my eyes. His curveball and slider generate enough whiffs for him to be interesting but I don’t have high hopes.

Azocar looks like a future star against fastballs but is pretty hopeless against anything else, which seems disturbingly like a right-handed version of Colton Cowser.

darren
9 days ago
Reply to  opifijikl

I think that total WAR figure is for the period of a team’s control. So that would be:

Eyanson: 7 WAR, $45 mil surplus value
Azocar: 7 WAR, $45 mil surplus value
Witherspoon: 1.6 WAR, $9.5 mil surplus value

Even an optimistic projection for Rutschman would be something like 5 WAR over the 1.3 season they have him, at a cost of about $12 mil.

I’m not arguing against the trade. But I think you’re really underestimating the value of prospects to try to make this point.

opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  darren

Thanks, yeah I’m still trying to wrap my head around how I value prospects. My views over the last year went from despising trading prospects to seeing enough exciting prospects fail that I’m ok trading them for current needs. I think.

MoMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Adley may be on a 3.1 WAR pace this year, but if you add up the 2026 WAR (accumulated and projected) from all of Boston’s top 10 prospects from 2 years ago, it’s less than 3.1. I think we tend to overrate the value of prospects.

If your point is that the prospects should have been saved for a better deal later, well the 2026 trade deadline was yesterday.

MoMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Adley may be on a 3.1 WAR pace this year, but if you add up the 2026 WAR (accumulated and projected) from all of Boston’s top 10 prospects from 2 years ago, it’s less than 3.1. I think we tend to overrate the value of prospects.

If your point is that the prospects should have been saved for a better deal later, well, the 2026 trade deadline was yesterday.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  Mo

Using ten prospects from one system two years ago probably isn’t the best dataset to be making judgements on.

MoMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  airforce21one

I wanted to look back 2 years because that’s how long Adley will be under team control. I used the Red Sox because that’s the farm system we are talking about here.

I know this isn’t a definitive analysis, but its an easier way (at least for me) to put the prospect values in perspective, rather than saying X prospect will be worth 7 WAR between 2028 and 2035.

It also illustrates how quickly prospect lists change. If the Red Sox need to trade for another catcher when Adley’s contract is up, their top prospect list will have turned over completely.

Paul SporerFanGraphs Staff
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

the confidence with which we declare these prospect deals as massive overpays the day their conceived is just SO over the top in the prospect hugging era. If you’re getting 4 guys in a deal, 1 is gonna work most of the time. Feel like we (the baseball community) are overly rosy on projecting the traded prospects.

fincampbell05Member since 2025
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

1. I don’t think Breslow’s job is in jeopardy at all. I think he was being aggressive to land a star at a position of need, using prospects that, yes, he may believe are overvalued, but also ones he can replace easily with Boston’s elite pitching development.
2. I think you’re blocking off FV tiers too rigorously here. Going “oh well Eyanson is a 55 and Nimmala is a 50, Eyanson is so much better/more valuable!” isn’t the right way to think about it, I think. They’re at different positions, Nimmala probably has higher upside, and obviously these are the numbers put on them by one website. I wouldn’t be surprised if half the teams in the league think Nimmala is more valuable than Eyanson.

Shalesh
9 days ago
Reply to  fincampbell05

Interesting. Than why does Longenhagen say that guys in the same tier number are much closer to each other than a guy at the bottom of a higher tier and a guy at the top of a lower tier?

You and @PaulSporer are rationalizing away something empirical and objective.

If you want to say that Longenhagen’s prospect ratings are nonsense, just say that. The problem though is that they line up with trades fairly well over the last 10-12 years, so when we see a trade that doesn’t conform, it’s fairly easy to call it out.

darren
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Why would Breslow think he won’t be back? His team made the playoffs last year and is sitting in a wild-card spot this year.

darren
9 days ago
Reply to  Mo

This is a bit reductive. First, it’s only been two years. You’re not keeping prospects expecting them to help you in the next two years. It’s understood.

Second, yes, only three of those guys appear to be very good players. But that’s the nature of prospects and they are valued accordingly. That’s why you’re not trading Eyanson straight up for 6 years Rutschman because prospects are still a big risk.

Third, you can’t just look at who’s helpful right now. Try that standard on Crochet deal:

Crochet 0.3 WAR

Meidroth 2.6 WAR
Montgomery 0.9 WAR
Teel 0.0 WAR

MoMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  darren

Oh, its a totally reductive ‘analysis’ and I was definitely being glib by adding up the WAR.

My point of looking at the top 10 list from 2 years ago was to put the future production of the prospects and the timeframe to reach that production in perspective.

Its hard for me to internalize a projection of X WAR over 6 controlled seasons. Its much easier to see that it looks like Montgomery developing into an average corner outfielder in 2 years; Mayer and Rodriguez struggling in their first years in the majors; Alcantara and Bleis have advanced to AA; etc. These are probably the development paths for Eyanson, Azocar, and Witherspoon.

Johnnie TMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  hayz11

I disagree. So many of Breslow’s moves look like he allowed himself to be backed into a corner and overpaid as a result, or perhaps it is panic moves to save his job. Good GMs don’t do that.

It’s really fortunate for him that the Red Sox farm sytem these days is just tossing out ungodly amounts of talent for him to relatively squander.

And sorry, Adley looks kind of broken. I would be surprised if he got a total of 500 ABs for the Sox between this year and next.

hayz11Member since 2021
10 days ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

This is fair – I’m not convinced Breslow is a good GM – but I think this is a step in the right direction for him. He’s always behaved like he’s the smartest person in the room, and therefore has to “win” any deal he makes. I don’t think he won this deal by any stretch of the imagination, but that’s not the point, the point is to win baseball games and this gives them a better chance to do so this season.

And to be honest 500 ABs of Rutschman over the next two years is still going to be dramatically better than anything else the Sox have been trotting out in recent years.

opifijiklMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  hayz11

I would say Breslow is a learning GM with some skills he’s good to very good st at and some skills that he should improve.

Maybe it’s the high of a crazy good July, but this year the offseason and trade deadline feel way smoother than the previous two, so I take that as a positive sign.

I also like how he’s been pretty “see problem solve problem” so far, even if some problems have been self inflicted.

Brock244
10 days ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

Mind you, Adley has the 2nd best xWOBA of his career and his expected stats/PD/contact/hard hit metrics are all in line w career norms

No idea about the wrist stuff, but his under the hood data is strong and probably better than the results show the last few years

Last edited 10 days ago by Brock244
opifijiklMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

I think he’s the one making his fortune here by focusing the farm system on developing ungodly amounts of talent. He’s got a knack for developing pitchers, also has been drafting them highly, and so the pitchers on the farm system are great, and new ones are coming!

Good GM’s build teams that can compete and they patch up holes in their lineup and the farm system is a tool to help them do that.

I don’t think realizing your catching situation is bad halfway through the year and trading from your farm system to get an established catcher to patch that hole is panicking, or realizing your 2b situation isn’t what you expected and trading for a better 2b. Teams have been doing that forever! I’ll admit that last year, that felt like a panic situation though.

RobotBoy
9 days ago
Reply to  opifijikl

As a longtime Red Sox fan and one who follows their farm, it is very strange to see the organization craft good pitchers (and improve acquired ones). Who was the last #1 starter that came through their system before they gave Breslow the keys – John Lester? Decades of failure. Some ugly recipe of poor scouting and even worse development. Breslow has a prospect template he sticks to (for the most part) and it appears that he knows how to get better velo and better pitches from that pool. The fact that the team went on the run missing many of its top arms offers fairly robust evidence. Luck always plays a role but a good portion of what Breslow is doing seems repeatable.

Last edited 9 days ago by RobotBoy
MoMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

What?! You think he’s lucky that the farm system keeps generating prospects? We can be hard on Breslow, but the farm system is clearly something he deserves credit for.

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
9 days ago
Reply to  Mo

You can be both good and lucky. And when it comes to pitchers, a fair bit of luck does feel to be involved in their elbows not imploding before you can get them to the majors and/or trade them for something other than magic beans.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  hayz11

Not to mention the AL is terrible in 2026 and this Red Sox team might be the best one in the AL playoffs. Judge may be hurting and Seattle might not make it.

They have a punchers chance against the Dodgers, and more than that if Snell, Otani, Diaz and Glasnow aren’t recovered enough to be effective pitchers.

Breslow struck while the iron was hot.

Antonio BananasMember since 2026
10 days ago
Reply to  hayz11

Its an overpay in value, but I dont know if thay factors in scarcity.

How many guys who are primarily catchers have a wRC+ over 100? How many are good fielders at that position?

If you’re Boston, how many players are blocking the players they traded and how hard would a replacement be to find?

What is the likelihood of a pitching prospect pitching <200 major league innings?

In a pure surplus value comparison, it's an overpay, but Im not sure it's true with the context (Boston's current depth, catchers scarcity, etc).

Brock244
10 days ago

I think the Adley trade was 1 prospect too rich. Like, if you took out 1 of Withersoon/Azocar and it was 2 prospects + Narv, its a lot more palateble. Especially when you kind of look at Adley’s under the hood stuff which points to him being a lot better than the results the last few years

I look at that 1 extra prospect to be the in-divison tax + desperation from the sox.

In the long run, its probably not a big deal. But it definitely feels like ALOT to give up and a great haul for the O’s.

Hazmat CorntailMember since 2022
10 days ago

It’s not lost on me that the Phils moved on from Castellanos in part because of his defense, and brought in a weak bat with a good glove in Adolis, who they’re now (effectively) replacing with another bad defender.

marinmccoveysMember since 2026
10 days ago

Oh, miss me with your “pearl clutching” wave of the hand. The Dodgers will pay $180 million in luxury tax this year, a figure that is considerably larger than most teams entire payrolls, and it’s no accident given the comically uneven revenue distribution in MLB. The idea that they manned up for Skubal while Mil and TB punked out by refusing to drain their lifeblood farm systems or that they were somehow on equal footing to the Dodgers in making the risk calculations is a tired red herring, as is the namecalling and dismissal of those who see MLB’s systemic status quo as deeply, deeply flawed and insufficiently competitive. It’s like chiding the Millennials to cut out the lattes and avocado toast and to work more hours so that, they too, can grow up to be billionaires one day. It’s nonsense, riding the jocks of those in power, and unbefitting of a gold standard analytics site. I think overall your analysis is fantastic btw, but let’s not get too cute.

Last edited 10 days ago by marinmccoveys
sadtromboneMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

I don’t want a salary cap, but it’s pretty clear to me that this cannot continue either. I think it’s very possible to be both against these sorts of crazy resource advantages and also think a cap isn’t going to address them unless it is much lower than what the owners have proposed.

More revenue sharing is definitely needed though, especially if it means the Dodgers are paying more in. I am not super aware of the details, but I am vaguely aware of the idea that the Dodgers’ revenue advantage relating to them not sharing it. The four highest AAVs on the Dodgers come out to about $160M, which is larger than the entire payrolls of thirteen teams. A more robust revenue sharing environment would do a lot to address that, especially if it came with a “miser tax” at the bottom of it.

I don’t really want to break up the Dodgers too much because I think it’s good for the game that there’s team with such a strong presence in Japan. But when your revenue advantage is so crazy that you can pay Blake Snell $31M to only pitch in playoff games and Kyle Tucker a $57M AAV to put up 1 WAR and it barely inconveniences you then something has gone wrong.

marinmccoveysMember since 2026
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I am not in favor of a salary cap btw.

A Salty ScientistMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The owners have a revenue sharing problem, and want the players to solve it. Specifically by depressing their salaries. Fuck that.

fredsbankMember since 2020
10 days ago

The Dodgers have a revenue-sharing-exempt TV deal that brings in more money annually than half the league’s entire revenue streams, and no other team has any way to achieve such a feat. Fuck that.

A Salty ScientistMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  fredsbank

This is a problem that can be easily solved without reducing the player’s share of the pie.

fredsbankMember since 2020
9 days ago

A 50/50 full revenue split puts more money on the players side. The current CBA only guarantees 48% and only local media. How is that better?

dumdogMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  fredsbank

because all the numbers are made up and none of them are public. so a 50/50 split is irrelevant if only one side of that deal knows the numbers.

fredsbankMember since 2020
8 days ago
Reply to  dumdog

Good point, better do nothing at all

fredsbankMember since 2020
8 days ago
Reply to  dumdog

Good point, better do nothing at all, the current system is perfect

jdbolickMember since 2024
10 days ago

I see this comment all the time, so I don’t blame you for believing it, but you could not possibly be more wrong. When the NFL, NBA, and NHL implemented a salary cap, all three of them increased the percentage of revenue that went to the players.

Salary caps are not and never have been designed to depress salaries. They’re designed to create cost certainty. Owners have seen the Dodgers’ payroll + tax increase from $285.6 million in 2021 to $431.5 million in 2026. That’s a 51% increase in five years.

The issue is that MLB cannot unliterally change revenue sharing or implement a salary cap. The MLBPA has to agree.

iiJayBeeMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I think the revenue disparity between team TV contracts is something the owner can unilaterally change. But the owners want to see the public on the idea that the only way to solve it is to tie it to a salary cap. Which, I believe, is a complete lie. Of course, the Dodgers and Yankees don’t think there is a problem to solve.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  iiJayBee

All changes to revenue sharing are required to be collectively bargained between the owners and players’ union. The owners are not allowed to make changes unilaterally in how they redistribute media revenue.

A Salty ScientistMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Have the owners shown that they actually want an NBA-style revenue-sharing model? And to actually open their books to do so?

Last edited 9 days ago by A Salty Scientist
jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago

The open books thing is really overblown. Atlanta’s books have been open since 2007 and the MLBPA has audit rights to all thirty teams via Article XXIV(D) of the CBA.

dumdogMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

and theyve also sent multiple lawsuits to a dozen teams for not spending.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  dumdog

The MLBPA has filed grievances, not lawsuits, and they were to four teams rather than twelve (Pirates, Marlins, Rays, and Athletics).

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I’m not sure a salary cap is really needed if all media revenue is shared. The incentive to Dodger just won’t be there. See Dallas Cowboys vs Real Madrid.

The proposed 50% revenue shared with players isn’t a bad starting point for negotiations.

basically baseballMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Ah so you think the redistribution of money that owners won’t spend will suddenly make it all even. Ridiculous. The key problem is owners don’t spend anywhere close to their revenue capabilities or capacity so they can whine and convince fans who only watch their team that somehow the Royals suck because the Dodgers are good at running an organization.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
9 days ago

That’s because they rightly see winning as a zero sum game and bidding up player prices is bad for all of them. If everyone paid what they theoretically could, all combined teams would still finish at .500 and expenses would be much higher.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago

The key problem is owners don’t spend anywhere close to their revenue capabilities or capacity so they can whine and convince fans who only watch their team that somehow the Royals suck because the Dodgers are good at running an organization.

The Los Angeles Dodgers had total baseball revenue of $950 million in 2025. The Kansas City Royals had total baseball revenue of $332 million in 2025.

We’ve had access to Atlanta’s financial records for the last seventeen years because they are a publicly traded company. We know how much they spend relative to their revenue. The idea that MLB organizations are hoarding massive profits is a fantasy.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
9 days ago

The Royals actually do spend a lot of their revenues on players! What is it with anti-revenue sharing arguments involving the worst possible examples? Over the last few years the teams that were most miserly on player payroll are the Guardians, Rays, Marlins, Athletics, and Pirates…and also the Cubs, Red Sox and (depending on how you calculate it) the Angels. Teams like the Royals and the Brewers are aggressive! Getting more money into their hands would absolutely mean more money going to the players.

nahMember since 2026
10 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

MIL and TB, two franchises who supposedly need “lifeblood farm systems” built their teams out of trades and free agents. The people who run those teams can always find average to above-average players. The current system benefits the MIL and TB franchises the most, as they are able to consistently build the best teams in the league without being forced to overpay for declining veterans, or really pay anyone at all.

MIL/TB were teams that had the least to lose by trading for Skubal because they are so good at what they do.

Last edited 10 days ago by nah
sandwiches4everMember since 2019
10 days ago
Reply to  nah

Milwaukee has 2 players on their active roster (and MLB IL) they acquired in free agency: Gary Sanchez and Bryse Wilson. They’ve got a couple of depth pieces in the minors they picked up on FA deals.

Tampa’s got a few more FA: Mullins, Nick Martinez, and a few bullpen arms.

Mentioning free agency as how they “built” their teams is ludicrous and undercuts any point you’re trying to make. If your point is that the current reserve system unfairly screws low service-time players, I’d agree with that (the pre-arb bonus pool is a huge move in the right direction, but didn’t go far enough, IMO).

Also, FWIW, Milwaukee is paying a declining veteran quite a bit of money (Yelich).

nahMember since 2026
10 days ago

You’re right and I’m wrong about the free agents. Under the system proposed by MLB, TB and MIL would be forced into signing veterans they do not want and who would likely make their team worse at the further expense of low service-time players.

Broken BatMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  nah

No they didn’t…

darrenasuMember since 2025
10 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

I hear ya…but the point remains Skubal has nothing to do with those points. He was cheap and available for the type of talent the Brewers and Rays have in droves. Either of them could have done this easily without breaking the bank. So you can miss me with all the “these teams are all broke” pearl clutching as well

Thornton MelonMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  darrenasu

On the everyday player front, hard to argue. The Tigers wanted pitching as well, and pitching is hard to develop. When you have a planned starting rotation of stars that come exclusively from FA (I know technically Glasnow was via trade, but the trade was only made after he had agreed to a contract extension with LA), the ability to include a top 50, MLB-ready pitcher is inarguably easier than if you rely on player development and undervalued trade targets to field a staff. Brewers reportedly offered Pena, one of Adamczewski or Williams and another ‘top 100-level’ hitter (Fischer? Payne? Frias?) for Skubal, and it’s hard for me to say that is demonstrably worse than the Dodgers offer. The mix may just have been preferable coming from the Dodgers because of the pitching, and, as said, I think that’s where the ability to play in FA benefits LA the most.

GoatHerderMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  darrenasu

One point I would like to make is how the Dodgers had the prospects to trade. They have money to sign Freeman along with a gazillion other high dollar free agents. Because they have Freeman, they don’t need to try an unproven but top 100 prospect in Michael Busch. Busch is a great player, but he isn’t Freeman. Busch had spent 2 seasons and nearly 1000 ABs at AAA. He had nothing further to prove. Dodgers flip spare part Busch for two younger prospects in part to free up room on the 40 man. One of which was Zyhir Hope who becomes a key piece of the Skubal trade.

Because of their financial might they can smartly exercised prospect arbitrage since those cost-controlled prospects are much more valuable to a small market team than a team with seemingly limitless payroll.

I don’t blame the Dodgers. They have a financial advantage and are pressing it. I’d rather they overpay players versus further enriching their owners but for long term health of the game something needs to change.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  GoatHerder

Busch is not a great player.

TKDCMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

If other teams want to be more competitive, maybe they should start by being more competitive. Maybe fans shouldn’t let them get away with whining about the Dodgers or whatever other “evil empire” of the day and the greedy players union. If the owners weren’t making money hand over fist with ever-skyrocketing team valuations, then maybe I could handle them crying poverty.

Past that, parity in MLB is at least as strong as any of the other major sports, despite a large handful of cheapskate owners. I’m not sure that a two-year winning streak that included incredibly close calls in both years is a harbinger of doom.

jdbolickMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  TKDC

If the owners weren’t making money hand over fist with ever-skyrocketing team valuations, then maybe I could handle them crying poverty.

This kind of comment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Team valuations do not make anyone any money unless the team is actually sold. They’re not profit.

We have had access to Atlanta’s books since 2007. We know that they are not “making money hand over fist.” Most teams make a little money, some teams lose a little money, the Dodgers make a ton of money, and the Mets lose a ton of money.

Past that, parity in MLB is at least as strong as any of the other major sports, despite a large handful of cheapskate owners.

The Brewers have been run about as well as any organization can be over the last decade, yet they trade one of their best players every winter and haven’t reached the World Series since 1982.

TKDCMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Yeah, I think you’re the one that doesn’t understand economics. The teams are investments and the return on investment comes from both net profit and increased valuations. If you don’t have any net profits for 10 years but you still sell the team for twice what you paid for it, that is still very good ROI from an investment standpoint. I promise you billionaires don’t care how they get an extra billion as long as it happens and they don’t pay taxes on it.

The Braves are making a ton of money in baseball revenue compared to costs. I don’t know why you’d say they aren’t.

And cherry picking the Brewers is useless. The Vikings are well run and have never won a Super Bowl. The Sixers haven’t won a title in many many decades. There will always be a team or two that goes a long time without winning even with regular season success. That’s just how distributions happen with 30 teams and only one winner per season.

Last edited 9 days ago by TKDC
jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  TKDC

Yeah, I think you’re the one that doesn’t understand economics.

You’re saying that because you’re emotionally invested in a narrative that runs contrary to the facts. You claimed that owners are “making money hand over fist with ever-skyrocketing team valuations,” which clearly is not true.

If you don’t have any net profits for 10 years but you still sell the team for twice what you paid for it, that is still very good ROI from an investment standpoint.

If they sell the team, this is correct, but the owners do not want to sell their teams. They are not looking to maximize returns, they enjoy being in a closed club of twenty nine other people who are majority or sole owners of an organization in Major League Baseball.

The Braves are making a ton of money in baseball revenue compared to costs. I don’t know why you’d say they aren’t.

Because we have SEC filings proving you wrong. In the period between 2021 and 2025, the Atlanta Braves had a total profit of $40.7 million for a net profit margin of 1.4%. The U.S. national average net profit margin across all industries is 8.54%. MLB teams are not wildly profitable businesses. They’re barely profitable at all.

And cherry picking the Brewers is useless. The Vikings are well run and have never won a Super Bowl. The Sixers haven’t won a title in many many decades. 

I mentioned the Brewers because they are arguably the best run organization in baseball, or at minimum one of the top two. The Vikings and Sixers aren’t even top ten in their respective sports.

TKDCMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

We’ll have to agree to disagree, which I know is a little triggering for you, but I can promise you that you’re wrong and fundamentally don’t understand economics.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  TKDC

Correct, we do not agree to disagree because I provided data proving you wrong while you have presented nothing to support your assertions. You’re resorting to empty promises precisely because you have no facts to back up anything you’ve said.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  TKDC

Actually, selling a team for double it’s worth after ten years is NOT a very good ROI from an investment standpoint. Have you ever heard of the term “opportunity cost”? Presumably you have, since you keep talking about economics. The owner would have made more money simply buying an index fund that covers the S&P 500. Quite a bit more, in fact.

Last edited 9 days ago by airforce21one
NATS FanMember since 2018
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

I’m a former economics professor, former wall street trader, and former financial advisor who retired at 59. You can monetizes the full value of the team even if you never sell a single share. Rich dudes have way more ability to monetize than average folks. How else can Jeff Bezos live the life of a billionaire without taking a salary from Amazon. Baseball owners do the same things. They have all ready pocketed and reinvested somewhere else every dollar of appreciation in these teams. Its easy to do!

Shalesh
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

Bezos just sold $4B of Amazon shares. And sure, at some point, he borrowed against his shares in the past . Still, an owner’s wealth has nothing to do with operating profit. The owner may own many ventures. If they’re all losing money, he won’t be an owner for very long.

Likewise an asset’s value is usually entirely related to the cash flow it generates. If you borrow against equity to fund operations, you incur opportunity cost such as interest expense or cost of capital and that erodes the value of the asset.

And @TKDC, if the Braves were making a “ton of money” Liberty Media A would be a hot stock. Has it beaten the S&P over say the last 5 years? I haven’t checked since Craig Edwards wrote for Fangraphs.

TKDCMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

My understanding is the Braves stock isn’t a perfect way to judge their financial success (I’ll admit I’m not sure exactly why), but they have performed well above the S&P over the last five years, for whatever that is worth.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  TKDC

You are incorrect. It has actually performed well below the S&P 500.

BATRA, which is Atlanta Braves Holdings Series A stock, has increased from $43.43 when it split off from Liberty Media to $54.80 today. That’s an increase of 26.2%.

The S&P 500 closed at $4,536.34 on the day of the split and is now at $7,736.52. That’s an increase of 70.5%.

NATS FanMember since 2018
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Dividends?

darrenasuMember since 2025
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Are the people downvoting here saying his facts are wrong? Genuinely curious.

TKDCMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  darrenasu

He said I was wrong about something that I was right about, and then talked about a completely different data point. He is needlessly antagonistic and doesn’t understand economics.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  TKDC

He said I was wrong about something that I was right about

You said: “If the owners weren’t making money hand over fist with ever-skyrocketing team valuations, then maybe I could handle them crying poverty.”

I said that you don’t understand economics because you believe that valuations cause the owners to make money hand over fist, which isn’t true. The only way owners make money from increasing valuations is if they sell the team, which they don’t want to do.

Increases in team valuations increase the amount that owners can borrow against if they want to do so, but increasing your borrowing limit is extremely different from “making money hand over fist.” MLB also strongly discourages owners from borrowing in that fashion due to the Frank McCourt fiasco.

You then claimed that: “The Braves are making a ton of money in baseball revenue compared to costs. I don’t know why you’d say they aren’t.”

I provided data from SEC filings proving you conclusively wrong. Note that this is not a difference of opinion, you are factually wrong. Between 2021 and 2025, the Atlanta Braves had a total profit of $40.7 million for a net profit margin of 1.4%, which is well below the national average.

You then said: “the Braves stock … (has) performed well above the S&P over the last five years, for whatever that is worth.

The exact opposite of that was true, as BATRA has increased by 26.2% since splitting from Liberty Media while the S&P 500 increased by 70.5% over the same period.

He is needlessly antagonistic

It’s the opposite of needless. You made statements that you believed to be true but which I subsequently proved conclusively wrong. These aren’t subjects where we can agree to disagree because they are not differences of opinion. Your statements were factually wrong. I provided information proving that while you have provided exactly nothing aside from an empty promise.

Shalesh
9 days ago
Reply to  TKDC

I don’t think you should be accusing anyone else of not understanding economics. Some of these statements of yours are howlers. Did you take your economics classes from NATS FAN? My god.

  1. I promise you billionaires don’t care how they get an extra billion as long as it happens and they don’t pay taxes on it.”
  2. My understanding is the Braves stock isn’t a perfect way to judge their financial success (I’ll admit I’m not sure exactly why)”

I appreciate your honesty, but you’re a Braves fan, iirc. If you are so passionate on this issue and self-proclaimedly so knowledgable about economics, you’d figure you’d spend 15 minutes looking at the BATRA 10k or annual report once in a while so you’d have a crisp argument when this comes up on Fangraphs.

Especially because I’m fairly sure we (maybe not you personally) had a very similar conversation about this 8 or so years ago when Craig Edwards was around and we’re just rehashing it now and you’re expecting other people to analyze the BATRA statements for you.

Additionally, BATRA not withstanding, MLBPA has all of MLB’s revenue and cost information and has had this for at least 30 years if not longer, so I’m not sure where the “MLB is not opening its books” complaint is coming from.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  darrenasu

FanGraphs readers tend to be pro-labor and anti-owner in general, so anything running counter to that narrative has a tendency to be downvoted even if it’s factually incorrect. Add in that they also are inclined to downvote anything I say regardless of the content and it’s to be expected.

NATS FanMember since 2018
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

If you looked closely at the profits of Elon’s companies, you would find that he has rarely ever posted profits with anything. Tesla went more than a decade before it finally turned a profit. During that decade tesla got a giant check from our government in free money every year. Yet because he had more than 50% he retained control. That and despite the big losses, the stock price went up anyways. If no one cares you’re losing money then no one sells.

Shalesh
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

You’re taking one company where investors continually value the next thing (currently a massive potential market for humanoid robots) and generalizing to every business?

Is that how you teach economics? Yikes!

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Not only that, but Tesla received $3.16 billion in direct government subsidies along with another $14.8 billion in regulatory and tax credits. Without the U.S. government’s ATVM loan in 2010, Tesla would have gone bankrupt.

Labor is an ideological issue for people like NATS Fan and TKDC, so they’re going to argue what they want to believe is true even if all of the available information runs counter to their preferred narrative.

Dave from DCMember since 2018
8 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Genuinely curious to hear how you think about the following observations, jdbolick, given your viewpoint:

  1. Salary caps are designed, seemingly, to put long-term downward pressure on the share of revenue going to players. You mentioned that when the other major pro sports league adopted salary caps, the player share of the revenue increased, but subsequent CBA negotiations have chipped away such that those leagues are now all at or under 50%. I find this unsurprising: once players agree to a cap, they’ve lost their biggest bargaining chip, and subsequent negotiations will focus on the revenue split. This makes it all the more jarring that the owners opened with a 50/50 split proposal–they want players to give up their greatest point of leverage without even extracting a premium.
  2. On team profitability, I often think back to Andrew Zimablist’s May the Best Team Win (published by Brookings, lest you worry about its political bent). Though admittedly dated, it has an entire chapter devoted to how teams can artificially reduce their profitability. Related-party transactions in particular allow a significant portion of revenue that is generated by the team to be credited to other businesses. And the chapter ends with a section describing how, even if we take at face value the claims that teams are not particularly profitable, the average annual rate of return for owners in fact outpaced the S&P significantly between 1960 and 2002. More recently, Forbes came to this conclusion: “Forbes’ estimates have MLB clubs in the black at an average EBITDA of $800 million for the past decade [2010 to 2020].” Happy to link the article, which gets to the crux: owners claim that number is much, much lower, but of course it is in their interest to do so–at least Forbes is an independent evaluation. All of which leads to:
  3. I don’t think one can simply assert that “the facts” demonstrate baseball isn’t particularly profitable. That’s very much an open question, and there is good reason to be skeptical of the owners. An article right here at Fangraphs, published in 2022 and looking at the books for the Braves, concluded, “When the game returns to the field, however, I expect that teams will continue to do quite well for themselves. Perhaps they won’t all be as profitable as the Braves, but there’s plenty of room to do worse than Atlanta financially and still excel. With increased stadium capacity across the board next year and the potential for new gaming revenue, the future looks bright.”

I mean to engage in good faith, not antagonize, but I think some of the response you have gotten here is less a refusal to accept fact than it is a response to a reductive account of what the facts say.

jdbolickMember since 2024
8 days ago
Reply to  Dave from DC

You mentioned that when the other major pro sports league adopted salary caps, the player share of the revenue increased, but subsequent CBA negotiations have chipped away such that those leagues are now all at or under 50%. 

This isn’t always true. The initial NBA salary cap agreement stipulated that 53% of basketball revenue would go to players, then that actually increased to 57% in 2005. By 2011, NBA owners were claiming massive losses and protracted negotiations eventually reduced the percentage to 51%.

What’s important to remember is that the owners and players have a symbiotic relationship. They talk about each other like antagonists, but ultimately they both benefit if the league grows and increases revenue. 50% of $10.25 billion in revenue for the 2024-2025 season is 46% more than 57% of $3.7 billion in revenue for the 2005-2006 season even after adjusting for inflation.

So if the percentage gets high enough that it actually does start hurting the league, then the players end up suffering as well. They want a happy medium where the owners and players both reap the benefits.

Though admittedly dated, it has an entire chapter devoted to how teams can artificially reduce their profitability. Related-party transactions in particular allow a significant portion of revenue that is generated by the team to be credited to other businesses. 

This is a common misconception but it is not true. Every bit of Liberty Media’s revenue stream was submitted in SEC filings, not just the bits reported as baseball related income. We can see everything that was in there. Now it is certainly true that businesses use write-offs and other accounting tricks to reduce profits in order to shrink tax liability, but they can’t hide revenue. The league and the players’ union are required by the CBA to reach an agreement on what is determined to be baseball related income. The owners don’t get to decide that on their own.

I don’t think one can simply assert that “the facts” demonstrate baseball isn’t particularly profitable.

If you have done as much research into the subject as I have, then yes, you can. Billionaires don’t get into Major League Baseball to make money. If you are a billionaire who wants to increase your wealth, there are innumerable ways to do that better than buying a team. Becoming one of thirty sole or majority MLB owners in the entire world is about using the money they already made to achieve a level of status.

I think some of the response you have gotten here is less a refusal to accept fact than it is a response to a reductive account of what the facts say.

The thing you need to understand is that upvotes and downvotes have almost nothing to do with veracity and everything to do with approval. Even on an analytics oriented site like FanGraphs, people upvote the things that they want to agree with and downvote the the things that they want to disagree with even if they know the thing they want to disagree with is actually true.

If you scroll up a bit, there is a comment by iiJayBee which said: “I think the revenue disparity between team TV contracts is something the owner can unilaterally change.

It takes about thirty seconds of searching to confirm that is not true at all. The Collective Bargaining Agreement explicitly states that owners cannot unilaterally change media revenue distribution. And yet, even after I pointed out that this was not true, iiJayBee’s comment continued to be upvoted and is currently sitting at +10 (it was at +2 when I initially proved it wrong).

People knew the comment was wrong but still upvoted it because they preferred to believe that it was true.

Dave from DCMember since 2018
8 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Respectfully, this is precisely the tone that is not helpful:

If you have done as much research into the subject as I have, then yes, you can. Billionaires don’t get into Major League Baseball to make money. If you are a billionaire who wants to increase your wealth, there are innumerable ways to do that better than buying a team. Becoming one of thirty sole or majority MLB owners in the entire world is about using the money they already made to achieve a level of status.

First of all, you establish a false dichotomy. It can be true that prestige is a factor and that owners might make even more money elsewhere while at the same time being true that MLB teams are quite profitable.

More substantively, Andrew Zimbalist is one of the leading sports economists of his era, with a PhD from Harvard, a long career consulting to professional sports entities, and awards specific to his research into baseball. He wrote a book that disagrees with your premise and has called (along with many others) for MLB to lose its antitrust exemption. I went back and checked my bookmarks on this question, and Forbes has published numerous pieces disputing the league’s claims about revenue. Ben Clemens is a former Wall Street quant who looked at the same open books you cite and came to a different conclusion. A vague claim to your own research is not nearly enough to justify dismissing their arguments. Even if you are right–and I stress again, I am open to that–you have not demonstrated it; point me to your research, or any research, that offers a systematic account. Until then, the type of reply I quoted above is 1) bad argumentation, 2) very likely to annoy people, and 3) very unlikely to change opinions. I don’t downvote your comments (which in many cases I find helpful, even if needlessly pedantic), but if I did, that would be why.

jdbolickMember since 2024
8 days ago
Reply to  Dave from DC

First of all, you establish a false dichotomy. It can be true that prestige is a factor and that owners might make even more money elsewhere while at the same time being true that MLB teams are quite profitable.

It can be true but it isn’t, which is precisely why I included the revenue data from Atlanta’s financial filings. You can argue that the Braves are somehow uniquely unprofitable compared to the other twenty nine teams if you want, but I first provided publicly available data proving my point before presenting an alternative explanation for why ownership of MLB franchise is so coveted by billionaires.

He wrote a book that disagrees with your premise and has called (along with many others) for MLB to lose its antitrust exemption.

Do you understand what would occur if MLB actually did lose its antitrust exemption? The franchises would be forced to operate independently. Franchises could relocate wherever and whenever they wanted without league approval. There would be no more national media deals, as those are only possible due to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 creating antitrust exemptions for MLB, the NFL, NBA, and NHL. On the plus side, it would remove blackouts.

Even if you are right–and I stress again, I am open to that–you have not demonstrated it

Yes, I have. Whether or not you choose to accept those facts is completely out of my control. If you wish to present any data that contradicts what I said then I would certainly be open to reading it, but you haven’t, nor has anyone else.

Let’s focus on that point for just a second. Instead of actually presenting any information whatsoever that challenges anything I have said, you instead chose the appeal to authority by pointing to Andrew Zimbalist and Ben Clemens disagreeing with my conclusions as if that somehow invalidates them.

Until then, the type of reply I quoted above is 1) bad argumentation, 2) very likely to annoy people, and 3) very unlikely to change opinions. I don’t downvote your comments (which in many cases I find helpful, even if needlessly pedantic), but if I did, that would be why.

While we’re on the subject of bad faith argumentation, you completely ignored that in my prior comment I gave you a very specific example of a false statement being upvoted because people wanted to believe it. You didn’t even acknowledge the point, much less address it, because you realize that doing so would mean admitting that what I am saying is correct.

The reality is this: 1) I provided facts to corroborate my claims, and 2) no one else presented any facts which challenged those claims. I am always interested in learning new information that challenges my views, so if you have any data that contradicts my assertions, please share it.

Dave from DCMember since 2018
8 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

More poor argumentation. First, I didn’t address the other comment because it has nothing to do with me. There is nothing disingenuous about trying to keep our discussion self-contained, and the question of whether other people sometimes downvote your factual comments holds no interest for me. That “example” was at best a digression on your part, at worst a red herring.

Second, MLB enjoys a much broader antitrust exemption than the other leagues, which surely you must know as it is widely documented and discussed. (See for instance “Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption Still Looms Large For Minor Leaguers Despite Their Recent Unionization & Collective Bargaining Agreement”: “Over a hundred years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States granted Major League Baseball (MLB) an antitrust exemption, allowing the organization to engage in anticompetitive practices that antitrust laws are designed to prevent. Today, MLB remains the only sports league with an antitrust exemption, despite legal challenges and inquiries, especially regarding its impact on the recently unionized Minor League Baseball players in 2022.”)

Similarly, your understanding of appeal to authority is mistaken. To begin with, the question of whether and how it is a logical fallacy is very much in dispute, as some consider established expertise a sound way of forming an opinion on matters in which one is not expert. Even setting that aside, I was citing evidence for my position, not saying that they had the last word on the matter, as I repeatedly made clear–would it have been preferable to not cite evidence instead? Surely not.

But none of those errors are what is really at stake here. I took the time to go back through all your comments, in case I had missed something, and the closest you come to providing evidence for your position is this:

Because we have SEC filings proving you wrong. In the period between 2021 and 2025, the Atlanta Braves had a total profit of $40.7 million for a net profit margin of 1.4%. The U.S. national average net profit margin across all industries is 8.54%. MLB teams are not wildly profitable businesses. They’re barely profitable at all.

But you also acknowledge this:

Now it is certainly true that businesses use write-offs and other accounting tricks to reduce profits in order to shrink tax liability, but they can’t hide revenue.

If that is your definition of a systematic argument for the profitability of MLB teams broadly, comparable to an article by a Fangraphs writer, a book by a scholar, or the journalism of a major publication, then your understanding of argument is poor. You are not the final authority on this question, either, no matter how much “research” you claim to have done. Point to a rigorous analysis, if you can. If you can’t or won’t, why should people be convinced? Because of your pedantry and condescension?

Thankfully, that is all the time I have to bash my head against this particular wall.

jdbolickMember since 2024
8 days ago
Reply to  Dave from DC

More poor argumentation. First, I didn’t address the other comment because it has nothing to do with me. There is nothing disingenuous about trying to keep our discussion self-contained, and the question of whether other people sometimes downvote your factual comments holds no interest for me. 

You ended your comment with a 1), 2), 3) on why you believe that people downvote my comments, so you can’t turn around and pretend that the subject holds no interest for you when you directly addressed it. That’s what made you ignoring my example so telling.

You are the one who engages in poor, deliberately disingenuous argumentation. You address what you think helps your argument and ignore anything that you think hurts your argument because you are emotionally invested in a specific narrative.

Today, MLB remains the only sports league with an antitrust exemption

MLB is the only one with a blanket antitrust exemption. It is not the only sports league with an antitrust exemption. As I already noted, the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 provided an antitrust exemption for MLB, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL. MLB’s is much more broad than the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL due to Federal Baseball Club v. National League in 1922, but all four of the major leagues do have some antitrust exemptions.

You are not the final authority on this question, either, no matter how much “research” you claim to have done. 

I have never at any point claimed to be the final authority on this or any other subject. I never ask anyone to simply accept that I am correct no matter how many times I have been in the past. I provide data precisely so that no one has to take my word for anything.

Atlanta’s books have been publicly available since 2007. People vastly more knowledgeable than I am have scrutinized them extensively and never found anything to indicate that “The Braves are making a ton of money in baseball revenue compared to costs,” which is what TKDC falsely claimed.

I cited the numbers on their profit between 2021 and 2025, then compared their net profit margin to the national average. No one has pushed back on those numbers, much less proven them wrong. All you’re doing is to make a nebulous suggestion that I’m wrong without actually providing anything whatsoever to support that.

why should people be convinced? Because of your pedantry and condescension?

People should care about facts. Sadly, most do not. Most would rather cling to something they wish were true even if they know it isn’t. All I can do is to provide the data that disproves false statements, as I did to TKDC and iiJayBee. Whether or not someone chooses to accept that information is out of my hands.

NATS FanMember since 2018
7 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Wait you supported what I said.

NATS FanMember since 2018
7 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Actually you have a fairly naive view. Elon is one among many nowadays.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

Tesla gets “free money” from the government as part of the U.S. government’s push to strengthen U.S. manufacturing and promote green companies.

If you don’t like those things, contact your local representative, professor.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

I would think a professor would know the difference between “all ready” and “already”, and when to use a question mark versus a period at the end of a sentence.

apiratefan
10 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

It’s felt a bit like there’s a segment of the FG staff that has been pretty patronizing and dismissive on this stuff. At times it’s like they’re trying to get Reddit upvotes or something or high fiving one another for their clever snark. It is indeed off putting.

Johnnie TMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  apiratefan

Baseball Prospectus is far worse. There is Orthodoxy over there, and comments thatdisagree are pummelled down hard.

Jim ParksMember since 2019
9 days ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

They just remove any comments contrary to the BP orthodoxy.

dumdogMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  apiratefan

sadly its literally everywhere, its like all the 12 year olds graduated and have only ever used twitter and tiktok to communicate.

MoateMember since 2022
10 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

So, just to be clear, that 180 million dollars that the Dodgers paid, that just gets set on fire, right? That vanished into nowhere?

Oh, no it was distributed back to the poor poor sad owners that can’t find the money to compete? So literally every dollar they spend in tax fuels their competitors?

I’m from the NYC metro and grew up scoffing at the Yankees and their infinite money machine in the late 90’s/early 2000’s. Since then, I’ve watch the No Fun League, a capped league with all sorts of unguaranteed money, have like 5 teams with the super bowl. What it taught me: Some teams are going to be dogshit, run by idiots into the ground, over and over and over again, because “reasons” and some dudes really care about winning ships.

I’m sorry people live in areas where the local team sucks in perpetuity, but The Dynasty ™ exists in every league everywhere, and so do The Cleveland Browns ™. Shanking the players you’re actually enjoying watching doesn’t fix that, and it’s the only “solution” being seriously discussed by ownership in the matter. And, as always, “your team” is just laundry owned by a billionaire and a sense of community that can be found in an infinite number of ways. There’s nothing “wrong” about just watching fun teams and not making the geographically closest baseball stadium’s current roster responsible for your happiness or whatever.

fredsbankMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  Moate

The NFL’s salary cap system, for all it’s myriad problems (see the saints playing infinite-dead-cap-money) has removed payroll from being the determinative factor in parity. It is almost entirely down to talent and coaching. The Super Bowl went through Manning, Brady, and Roethlisberger for twenty years because they were the best, not because New England, Denver, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh happened to be peerless financial titans.

Last edited 10 days ago by fredsbank
benderMember since 2020
9 days ago
Reply to  fredsbank

Now it’s mostly based on whoever lucks into drafting a generational QB. Also, Ben R doesn’t deserve to be in the same sentence as Brady and Manning.

I’d prefer the NFL kept revenue sharing but got rid of the cap. It would allow teams that didn’t happen to have a high draft pick in a good QB class to actually improve their odds of winning.

fredsbankMember since 2020
9 days ago
Reply to  bender

Whether or not you like it, the Steelers and Roethlisberger played in 6 AFC Championships from 2004 through 2016 and won 2 Super Bowls. One of Brady or Roethlisberger played in every single AFC Championship during those years. You can’t just omit that from the story of the NFL in the 21st century.

Last edited 9 days ago by fredsbank
gunnerhoss
10 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

Fantastic take. I couldn’t agree more. I am so tired of articles dismissive of anyone who is dismayed by the Dodgers’ moves in the last few years and its effect on baseball. I suppose I am a ‘pearl clutcher’, along with everyone else I know who follows MLB.

si.or.noMember since 2017
9 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

> It’s like chiding the Millennials to cut out the lattes and avocado toast and to work more hours so that, they too, can grow up to be billionaires one day.

This is a pretty disingenuous comparison. Everybody involved is in billionaires territory. The Dodgers are _not_ the most resourced team.

Paul SporerFanGraphs Staff
9 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

while Mil and TB punked out by refusing to drain their lifeblood farm systems” there’s the pearl clutching… the poor Brewers & Rays wouldn’t have drained anything with a Skubal trade. That’s so over the top. They’d have replenished without noticing a dent like they ALWAYS do

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
9 days ago
Reply to  Paul Sporer

I mean, it also comes down to what teams are prioritizing. In this case, I’d say that neither MIL nor TB had the same level of MLB-ready SP that River Ryan is at least projected to be (opinions, obviously, vary).

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  marinmccoveys

I agree, although I chide millenials to cut out the lattes and avocado toast not so they can grow up to be billionaires someday, but to stop asking carpenters, plumbers, and truck drivers to pay off their student loans.

Poster To Be Named LaterMember since 2025
10 days ago

Cubs as winners feels like a strange omission.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
10 days ago

It appears the Cubs, Brewers, and D-Backs all had their Plan A’s fail and I don’t think their backup plans worked that well.

The Cubs were in on Reid Detmers but the deal crashed on the day of the deadline, the D-Backs were about to trade for Clay Holmes but something with the medicals didn’t look good to the Mets, and it’s not clear if the Brewers had a good plan B after missing on Skubal.

Holmes is fine, but he’s comes with two fewer years of team control than Detmers and he’s just finishing up rehabbing an injury that has kept him out almost all year. Dustin May is no better than the Brewers’ fourth best starter and has underperformed his peripherals–I don’t think that drop in home run % is sustainable. And the D-Backs didn’t get a pitcher at all.

I don’t know that the Brewers or Cubs are straightforward “losers” because they each got gifted a pretty good pitcher for almost nothing (Senzatela, Gausman). But I do think that both of them would be good fits for Soriano, who was traded for a fair but not a package too different than the ones they ultimately sent out. The Brewers could have easily topped that deal for Gausman, which was basically a salary dump, and Gausman’s year hasn’t been all that different than May’s. And the D-Backs really needed Nootbaar, and they got him for not an exorbitant price, although they definitely fall more into the “losers” side than the winners.

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I’d also mark the Yankees as having a pretty clear plan A that didn’t work out, but they at least made one plus move (Garcia) and one not-great move (Ramos). They were clearly locked in on Jeffers/Goodman, and when neither was really available, it just seemed like Cashman punted on a catcher.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
10 days ago

I don’t think there are very many teams that uniformly made good moves or bad ones. I dislike a lot of individual deals, but often I like other ones they made this deadline. The Yankees got great value on the deals they made, but they really could have used a catcher or third baseman. I think they’re better off now than they were before, and they didn’t give up any prospect of value, but at the same time they don’t feel like big winners to me either.

This is also how I feel about the Blue Jays, Mariners, Nationals, and Mets. Probably others too.

fredsbankMember since 2020
10 days ago

A stupider version of the Rockies absolutely would have sent them Goodman for Camilo Doval, but to Cashman’s dismay, Bill Schmidt’s phone number was mysteriously disconnected

NYYfaninLAAlandMember since 2020
9 days ago

One could also argue NY’s Plan B – Stephenson of the Reds – was blocked by a Reds org that acted – uhh, mysteriously?
I’m a little surprised by the lack of commentary on the Reds approach, moving only Lowe for a lottery ticket (maybe justifiable) and the lefty reliever for $250 K in IFA money. FA hugging – the new inefficiency to exploit? Not thinking so.

Poster To Be Named LaterMember since 2025
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Let’s not overthink this. Jed has added not one, but TWO SP’s (which has been the only glaring weakness on this particular Cub’s team), both of whom have had consistent #2/3 performance leading up to the trade deadline. Holmes threw 73 pitches his last rehab start and is on the verge of being ready. Gausman’s inflated ERA aside, has virtually been the same super solid pitcher he was last year. How often does a contending team add two real contributors at the deadline? It’s a rarity.

This is without mentioning Zeferjahn, who I believe leads the league in reliever K% (or near the top) for several months now, and in that same span, cut down on walks big time. Been virtually unhittable during that time.

Not sure where the failed Detmers deal takes away from what appears to be a huge influx of talent (and in critical areas). If that’s not a deadline “winner”, I’m not sure what constitutes one, and where the bar for that exists.

Just fails the sniff test IMO.

MoateMember since 2022
10 days ago

OP seems to think “you’re either first or you’re last” when it comes to signing talent. They got a pile of pitching, including 3 starting dudes who should greatly benefit from their elite defense, in the last week and a half for a team that has been churning and burning arms in the bullpen this year. The offense seems stacked, the defense is top 2 at worst, and they get bolstered with a bunch of their injured guys coming back come fall. IDK that they needed more than what the did to be able to make it deep into the playoffs. And the “big” prospects they traded either had warts (mo-balla) or were blocked over the next several seasons (rojas) so, I wish them luck but the team will survive.

Show me the glaring hole they failed to address and not places where they “left value on the table”. I agree with you, they felt like winners this deadline.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  Moate

They certainly did in Dan’s piece–they jumped a lot in playoff %.

A very active deadline, and since Rojas might be the only prospect they’re going to miss you can argue that it was good value in the aggregate too.

Last edited 10 days ago by sadtrombone
MoMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The Braves are pretty clearly in the loser bin after the DeGrom trade veto.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  Mo

Oh is that where his veto came in? They already looked like losers (I just checked Dan’s article, ugh) but that makes it even worse.

The Brewers also lost a ton of ground. Rough stuff.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  Mo

They could have topped the Dodger offer for Skubal or at least made the Dodgers pay more than this.

Thornton MelonMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

Everyone keeps saying this, but if the Tigers truly coveted ML-ready pitching (and all reports seem to indicate they did), who else had the surplus to spare? The Brewers or Rays would have had to trade from those contributing to their current roster, and they could have (e.g., trading Logan Henderson), but they’d certainly be cutting into the surplus value vs. the Dodgers, who are trading exclusively from their farm. They’d also be impacting their long-term outlook much more than the Dodgers, even if LA doesn’t retain Skubal. The only team that would seem to be able to compete on that specific front would be the Mariners with their pitching depth (and maybe the Yankees due to their ML rotation strength), but I’m not sure it made sense for either to get in a bidding war with the Dodgers.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  Thornton Melon

I meant Atlanta.

Thornton MelonMember since 2020
9 days ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

I guess that’s my (maybe too murky) point. What ML-ready pitching does Atlanta offer to outbid the Dodgers? Cam Caminiti (nor any other ATL pitching prospect) is not moving the needle and making the Dodgers up their bid in my opinion (maybe Fuentes or Ritchie+Caminiti+someone like Hartman would make the DET consider demanding more from LA…I’d at least listen to that argument, though I probably wouldn’t agree with it). I don’t think volume alone gets it done either, so I’m wondering when people say ‘they could have outbid the Dodgers’, I’m not sure there are a lot of orgs that could have without vastly overpaying in hitter prospect capital.

Last edited 9 days ago by Thornton Melon
Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  Thornton Melon

Fuentes, Ritchie and whatever else is at least as valuable as what the Dodgers offered, although maybe less to Detroit’s liking.

benderMember since 2020
9 days ago
Reply to  Thornton Melon

Atlanta could have sent AJSS or Schwellenbach. Waldrep is probably out because of injury.

Shalesh
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Gausman had the Brewers on his no-trade list, so neither they nor the White Sox could bid on Gausman. The Cubs got a fantastic deal. Giving up Moises Ballesteros to get Zeferjahn was great too.

Given how cheaply Jose Soriano went for, I would rather they had traded Jefferson Rojas plus an FV45 for him than trading for Clay Holmes, but they should be a fierce competitor in the playoffs.

I love what the Pirates did in getting 4 relievers for their bullpen with the capstone of getting Luke Weaver for Sammy Stafura, who I’m sure Longenhagen is going to move up to an FV50 from his current rating of FV40, because no way an FV40 is enough for 1.5 years of Weaver.

The Rays getting Liam Hicks for FV50 Brayden Taylor and a couple other prospects was nice business too. Their lineup is pathetic after Yandy Diaz, Aranda, and Caminero.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
9 days ago
Reply to  Shalesh

The Marlins – Rays trade feels as close to a win-win as you can get.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Senzatela has had 50 good innings in his 850 inning career, so we’ll see how that turns out. I’ll give the Brewers the benefit of the doubt.

But to say the Brewers gave up almost nothing during this deadline simply isn’t true.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
10 days ago

For the winners, I think it’s definitely the Dodgers. How could it not be?

I also think the Orioles did awfully well to get Michael Forret back, as well as that huge haul from the Red Sox.

And I think the Cardinals got really strong returns for both Nootbaar and (especially) May and Romero.

A Salty ScientistMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I feel like both the O’s and Sox won, and I’m glad those teams decided against the ‘wisdom’ of not trading within the division.

Jewish PacheMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

New market inefficiency is just sending your pitching prospects to the Rays for a few months then bringing them back as an improved pitcher

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
7 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I am quite certain that there is nobody on Fangraphs that is any lower on May than me. I know he is not the same guy that I was watching throw the ball towards the plate last August for the Red Sox (I just cannot bring myself around to call it pitching) so I see any return as a huge win and when the return is the red-hot prospect Frias and Ragsdale, who is also sending out good vibes, this looks like the steal of the deadline. Ragsdale, a Boston College product, fits my model of a northeast player who is grossly undervalued because of the
anti-northeast bias that pervades the game. I was surprised to see this trade because it seems so out of character for the Brewers.

Last edited 7 days ago by bosoxforlife
matthayden4Member since 2024
10 days ago

Yeah, as a Jays fan, I’m puzzled about what to make of the last few days. I also would have preferred they picked a lane and committed to it, because I’m not sure what the plan is, and I don’t know if they know, either.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  matthayden4

I would have said compete in 2027 but then the Hoffman trade doesn’t fit

matthayden4Member since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

Taken as a whole it all feels very scattershot.

JSJohnSmithAnon
9 days ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

He needed a change of scenery, and you can pick up another reliever for next year.

Jason BMember since 2017
9 days ago

I dunno if a certain segment of the Jays’ fanbase will ever forgive/forget how last season ended and lay that almost entirely at his feet, and he had some further well-timed blow-ups early this year (with ridiculous BABIP-induced bad luck making it look and feel that much worse).

That said, he’s been absolutely lights out from June onward: 22.1 IP, 13 H, 8 BB, 3 ER, 30 K.

Not sure I would ever fully trust him in the 9th again, but Hoffman-Rogers-Varland was a totally devastating 7th-8th-9th inning threesome.

Last edited 9 days ago by Jason B
ice_hawk10
9 days ago
Reply to  Jason B

there is another issue with Hoffman that makes him less than the sum of his parts – a horrendous inability to control the running game and in general execute with runners on. So what you’re left with is a guy with great stuff who has all the surface markers of a borderline elite reliever, but one that you’re probably not comfortable with closing games, not one that you want out there in extra innings with the runner on second, and not one who is well suited to a firehose role either when he might have to come into the game with a runner on.

It’s not to say that he’s bad, he’s just less valuable than meets the eye. For $11mill AAV you envision a guy who can come into the game in a tight spot whenever you need him and get an out. He’s just not that guy.

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
9 days ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

“Established reliever” is short for “he hasn’t imploded yet“.

There are very few relievers who I’d spend for or worrying about trading. I think Cashman learned that one the hard way last year. Bird pitched his way back to AAA after 3 games last year, and wasn’t all that much better this year. He had to be part of a package with 3 other dudes to get any value for him. They spent decent prospect capital to get Doval, only for him to both meaningfully harm the Yankees’ chances in two different seasons, and flipped him for pennies on the dollar. Bednar’s been worth it — but even he was terrible early last season for the Pirates (or am I thinking of ’24?).

Getting anything of value for Hoffman — especially when you already have Varland — is good work, IMO. We can quibble about the exact return, and, admittedly, I don’t know much, if anything, about the dudes the Jays picked up.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
8 days ago

You can’t get him but Garrett Whitlock is the one pitcher who I would back up the truck for. This man is a stud!

Jewish PacheMember since 2020
10 days ago

Is there a better feeling for a trade value-ologist? To hear snide trade value comments about Adley for over a year, only to see an Adley with further diminished value get moved for this absolute haul

JSJohnSmithAnon
9 days ago
Reply to  Jewish Pache

What? He said was downgrading the value of catchers, didn’t have Adley in the top 50.

Jeff in JerseyMember since 2020
10 days ago

I think the my Mets have to fit in as undecided as well. The farm system ranking here on FG went up from 21 (I think) to 16, and that’s with FG being lowest on Stafura by a considerable amout. They added eleven new players overall. This year’s team will be worse but honestly, who cares? They might even be trying to get into the top-6 for a protected pick.
Because the future’s not clear for these players, I can see it not being a win…and who knows if Stearns has suddenly turned into a moron. Still, it’s at least an interesting enough deadline to discuss & consider–perhaps in the future, Ben?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  Jeff in Jersey

Rojas is a great add and it’s crazy that this was their backup plan. Unless they were getting Waldschmidt from the D-Backs plus other top prospects they got saved from themselves.

I am not high on Stafura, the return from the Rays or Twins, and somehow everyone was looking for a right handed outfielder but Robert is still on the team. Are they thinking of exercising his option? That is the only way that makes sense, but it doesn’t seem super likely.

Just a bizarre deadline. They might be winners but it feels like if they are it happened by accident.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
10 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Yeah, it is genuinely strange that they ended up hanging on to Robert.

MoMember since 2024
9 days ago

Not to rag on the guy too much, but I don’t think he had any trade value. The Mets would have to eat almost all his salary just to get back a 35FV prospect.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
9 days ago
Reply to  Mo

For some reason I thought he was running a 90 wRC+ but I am looking at his numbers and they are worse since he returned from the injury than I thought they were. I think you’re probably right.

If the Mets philosophically were opposed to paying down his salary then there’s not a lot they can do, but if they did they wouldn’t have to pay his buyout next year.

Shalesh
9 days ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Remember when people were laughing at Chris Getz here for taking Luisangel Acuna for Robert? Acuna is terrible, but Robert is terrible while making $20M/year.

Getz knew what he was doing by redeploying that $20M into Jordan Hicks, David Sandlin, and Seranthony Dominguez. After a terrible start to his season, Hicks found an arm slot that works for him and now is a high-leverage reliever. Dominguez isn’t worth his 2/$20M salary, but still much better than Robert.

Jewish PacheMember since 2020
10 days ago

Haven’t seen it discussed much because it’s smaller in the grand scheme of things but process-wise, the Twins have to be losers this deadline. After gutting the team to save money, they were more competitive than expected, and kicking the tires on some cromulent pitching makes perfect sense. Someone like Mahle for basically free would help. Taillon has been terrible but could give him a shot at no cost.

They gave a high ceiling 45 for Dean Kremer? I don’t care if Reyes never makes the majors, that just seems like abysmal process for a team in Minnesota’s position (after putting themselves there following this ownership debacle). Worst move of the deadline for me, even if relatively minor. Dean Kremer???

Deduno AbidesMember since 2026
10 days ago
Reply to  Jewish Pache

Twins were buying for PR reasons.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
10 days ago
Reply to  Deduno Abides

It probably didn’t work

Jewish PacheMember since 2020
10 days ago
Reply to  Deduno Abides

Agreed but more importantly that’s an elite username

Shalesh
10 days ago
Reply to  Jewish Pache

They got Jeff Hoffman for peanuts and AJ Minter’s a nice add too. Dean Kremer’s decent, but had they waited until Monday, better deals (Foster Griffin and others) were there for the taking.

warpath
9 days ago
Reply to  Jewish Pache

I’m a Twins fan, I was pretty mixed on the deadline.

Did not like the Kremer deal at all. Very low ceiling innings eater who will not be that cheap next year, and it cost them a real prospect. Maybe Reyes flames out and Kremer surprises me, but I thought you could either do slightly better shipping off Reyes, or ship off something less than that for something approximating Kremer.

The Minter deal I actually like. A pure rental reliever, but a solid one, for one fringy corners prospect with a low 60% contact rate in AA, and an absolute lotto ticket 6th round high school draftee who has played 15 professional games. This is a low stakes buy tha I thought was reasonable.

The Hoffman deal, I’m willing to wait and see. Dasan Hill is a huge variance prospect who is young and extremely talented but has flaws that could be fatal, and I don’t think Klein and Pena will be good major leaguers, at least not this iteration of them. I’m more just surprised the team was willing to take on significant money both this year and next for Hoffman. Hoffman immediately has the best swing-and-miss stuff in the bullpen and it’s not close, so he definitely, definitely helps.

I think it’s also worth mentioning the moves they didn’t make. They didn’t trade Larnach or Jeffers, despite heavy rumors about both. Some might criticize them for it. I’m okay with holding Jeffers if they actually offer the QO/re-sign him, which it seems there’s a chance they do. Larnach I would have liked to moved just to clear up the LHH outfielder logjam, but if you want to win this year, I see the argument for keeping him – he’s been quite good, and has one more year of control beyond this.

Overall, I am *fine* with this deadline. Not overly positive or negative. They only gave up two prospects who I think they might really regret (Reyes and Hill) but who are really outside of their top echelon of prospects. They got one guy who will definitely help for 1.5 years (Hoffman), one guy who will help this year (Minter), and a guy who I think, frankly, is very replaceable (Kremer).

So it was fairly modest buying, which I think is defensible but also not immune from critique.

filter2Member since 2025
9 days ago
Reply to  Jewish Pache

feels like the twins exercised the practice of subtraction by addition.

g4Member since 2020
10 days ago

Everyone embraces go-for-it moves, but cripes the Padres’ farm is threadbare. On one hand, their aging built-to-win now roster justifies being aggressive. On the other, SD was viewed as a likely seller just one week ago, and I’m not sold the additions of Mize and Ray are enough to buttress this team into a legit contender. With future decreases in payroll foretold, Padres fans could find themselves mired in a long rebuild as early as next year.

If Preller and Co. have accepted such a drought as inevitable, then I guess they had little to lose by swinging big. But racking up new charges on an already past-due credit card bill rarely ends well.

boomstickMember since 2024
10 days ago
Reply to  g4

Flags fly forever. I hope it finally works and they can topple the Dodgers for a season.

airforce21oneMember since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  boomstick

Which flags do the Padres have

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
10 days ago

I’m guessing the author couldn’t bring himself to say that the Angels were winners. Understandably so.

boomstickMember since 2024
10 days ago

I’d like to thank the Tigers for their contribution to the pending 2027 lockout

g4Member since 2020
10 days ago

With the caveat that they insist on playing in the shallow end of the pool, I thought the Guardians did well in damming up a couple leaky cracks (to put it mildly) in their offense while adding a cheap controllable SP for kicks.

NATS FanMember since 2018
9 days ago

Nats traded the 8th best starting pitcher in baseball by bWAR and broke up the best offense in expos/nationals franchise history for an innings eater that will barely be used this year and 8 35/40 fv guys that clog up our 40 man roster. Forcing us to fire 35/40 fv guys.

Last edited 9 days ago by NATS Fan
Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

As much as I don’t really believe Griffin is the 8th best starting pitcher in baseball and might not be that on the Dodgers, I do agree that he’s useful to them and they traded him for nothing and for no reason.

NATS FanMember since 2018
9 days ago
Reply to  Ivan_Grushenko

If you watched him pitch all year, you might feel otherwise. You don’t need to throw a hundred if you pitch really well. 7 different pitches intelligently thrown with control are effective in a different way. But they are effective! Particularly to guys used to seeing 100.

Ivan_GrushenkoMember since 2016
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

Putting it another way I think of him as the 2-3 WAR pitcher indicated by ERA estimators and not the 4-5 WAR pitcher indicated by 2026 ERA.

In any case I wouldn’t have traded him at all let alone for these guys.

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

As a Yankee fan, I appreciate getting Garcia for spare parts. I don’t understand what Toboni was doing — both of those trades felt super light to me.

Also, good luck with Jake Bird. You’ll need it.

NYYfaninLAAlandMember since 2020
9 days ago

Only real catch for me is NYY nearly eliminated their pen depth and didn’t backfill or get an active piece to replace that. Hopefully Banner in AAA can bring more to the table than I expect in the next 2 months.

WellIDoubtThat
9 days ago

The Red Sox gave up two Top 100 prospects and another interesting arm

Did they? FG released its updated top 100 ten days ago. He wasn’t on it. (Wasn’t even in the top 111.)

Then, assessing the trade, Galowski says he’s moved him into the top 100.

Based on what – the trade?

MLB.com – No
Baseball America – No
Bleacher Report – No
ESPN – No
Baseball Prospectus – No
The Athletic – No
Keith Law – No
FANGRAPHS – No

MoMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  WellIDoubtThat

I think the 2 top 100 prospects were eyanson and azocar, and Witherspoon was the other interesting arm. I think they inadvertently left Azocar off the recent top 100 update but he’s 82 on The Board.

darren
9 days ago
Reply to  Mo

If it were an inadvertent omission, I think Galowski would have mentioned that in his 8/3 writeup about the trade package.

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 days ago
Reply to  darren

He did:

When evaluating Boston’s system, Azocar was my favorite player to watch, and I’m still mad at myself for chickening out and only putting a 45+ FV grade on him back in May. The 19-year-old has shaken off some early growing pains after a midseason promotion to High-A and is now hitting .279/.338/.547 in Greenville, good for a 117 wRC+. A plus athlete with projectable power and a long-term center field projection, we’ve bumped him to a 50 FV and slid him into the Top 100.

darren
9 days ago
Reply to  jdbolick

He chickened out. He did not inadvertently omit him.

WellIDoubtThat
8 days ago
Reply to  Mo

Go ahead and explain how the “inadvertent” omission works in practice. They forgot he existed? They knew he existed but forgot their opinion of him?

It’s a really funny story for you to accept at face value.

The simpler explanation is that they didn’t rank him that highly, just like no one else has. Why they felt the need to change his rank after the trade is anyone’s guess, but that is almost certainly what they did.

And you don’t get to change it after the fact and then go around saying the Orioles acquired two top 100 prospects.

darren
9 days ago
Reply to  WellIDoubtThat

Why all the downvotes for this? It’s a reasonable question. On May 22, he was a 45+, on July 23, not in the top 111, and then on August 3, he’s a 50 FV, ranked #82.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
9 days ago

“I’m not sure how Boston’s season is going to turn out, but it’s been a delight to watch as a neutral observer.” Well Ben, I am just about as far from being a neutral observer as you can find and do not like either of Breslow’s move. I can see the reasoning and it is easy to see that he has tried to make the team stronger in the short run. No sane person can blame him for Mead’s injury and I do not, but I saw Early as a key part of a very strong staff that was under control until 2030. I preferred that approach. The Rutschman trade is harder for me to have a positive reaction to. The price was just to high. IMHO much too high for a catcher who is hinting at signs of permanent decline and with only a little over one year of control. Eyanson had jumped up the board more than any other player this year, Azocar has everybody abuzz with his explosive development and Witherspoon, who has slipped some, is still a recent 1st round pick. On the bright side, I see that Dustin May is packing his bags again and, thank goodness, he isn’t on a plane to Boston and Neto is still in LA and Arias is still in Worcester. All of these developments will keep me fascinated for the next several weeks which is why I love baseball.

fincampbell05Member since 2025
9 days ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

1. Early is extremely replaceable. He was already the fourth-best pitcher on the 2027 staff even with Gray gone. He’s a slightly-above-league-average starter that we’re going to churn out at a rate of 1-2 a year for the next several years.
2. What signs of permanent decline are you seeing from Rutschman? I could have understood that sentiment a year ago, but he’s posting a career high in hard-hit rate, with every other under-the-hood number looking just like it was in 2022-23. That just feels like an incorrect analysis of who he is right now.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
7 days ago
Reply to  fincampbell05

Three trips to the Injured List is most certainly one of the hints.

WellIDoubtThat
8 days ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Do you think Garret Crochet can replace Early?

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
7 days ago
Reply to  WellIDoubtThat

How many starts has Crochet made in 2026? Are you assuming he is going to ever again be the pitcher he was in 2025? I’m not. Do you think a team can get through a season with just five starters? I don’t. Sonny Gray’s contract is very convoluted and nobody knows where he will be chucking his stone next year. I can see trading a 30-ish starter with limited control but not a 24 year old under control through 2031. When combined with also moving Eyanson it is scary to a Red Sox fan who remembers, all to well, giving Bronson Arroyo away in 2006, because they thought they had enough pitching, in exchange for very possibly the worst defender I have ever seen in Wily Mo Pena. By July the Sox were using Jason Johnson and Kyle Snyder to start. Breslow should remember that because he was on that team.

shultz
9 days ago

Someone please help me understand what happens to a year of control in a strike year. I’m particularly interested in terms of trade value.

Does the strike year not count against a year of control? If a free agent has a year left on his contract and we lose the whole season to a strike, I assume he still owes that team another year. Maybe not?

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
9 days ago
Reply to  shultz

That would be part of negotiations, much like the return-to-play negotiations in 2020. I’d have a hard time believing that some owners would want to sign on to pushing some of the already-or-impending albatross deals out another year, while others would desperately want to prevent dudes from walking.

So I think the answer is, we don’t really know unless (and until?) it happens.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
9 days ago

I think it is fair to call the Early for Mead trade a deadline deal and Paul Toboni and the Nationals are learning a little physics the hard way. Newton’s 3rd Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It seems Toboni didn’t understand that when you trade a key part of your offense, Curtis Mead in this case, the team, which was averaging over 5 runs per game, suddenly stops scoring enough runs, 18 in the last 7 straight losses, to win any games.

NATS FanMember since 2018
9 days ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Our offense is gone since Mead. Even more so since Garcia. Yet he got no pitcher of note we can use to help this season. I think he just threw in the towel!

sandwiches4everMember since 2019
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

Oh he clearly did throw in the towel. The Garcia move was the tell, but the Griffin trade was the clincher.

Note, I really can’t fault him for the Mead-Early deal, that was really about cashing in a “found” asset for something while it still has value.

gettwobrute79Member since 2026
9 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

Do you think Toboni is looking to hit the free agent market hard for pitching this winter? I read somewhere that before arbitration cost, they have basically 10 million in committed contracts next season.

NATS FanMember since 2018
8 days ago
Reply to  gettwobrute79

Actually if you looked closely at our top pitching prospects, we have a fv55 a fv50 and aFv45+ arriving next year. Plus Herz, which zips likes, should be back from surgery then. There are others coming lower ranked. All want to start and have some promise.

Dan used zips and told me the system is very likely to produce one above average starter from the group. 1.4 in 2027 and 1.8 where the likely outcomes of above average starters from the system in 2027 and 2028. See a previous mailbag. I don’t recall which one. So we may not need a starting pitcher.

But, I do think we do need to find an ace somewhere. It’s hard to go far in the playoffs without an ace. I had thought Gore would be one. Then I thought Griffin was definitely getting those results. But, now we need an Ace.

gettwobrute79Member since 2026
8 days ago
Reply to  NATS Fan

Those prospects “arriving” feels more optimistic. Aren’t Susana, Sikora, and Rosario all coming off major injuries? Even if one or two has a spot secured in the rotation in 2027, I’d think they’re on a pretty heavy innings limit. Among keepers in their rotation, it’s Cavalli, Early…and that’s it. Maybe Alvarez? Making a play for one or two SP would probably ease some pressure on those young arms.

But, they also did lose a ton of offense with those trades. So maybe they go in that direction. Either way, they’ve got a ton of money they can spend this offseason to supplement what they’ve developed so far.

NATS FanMember since 2018
7 days ago
Reply to  gettwobrute79

Yes, but they were well over a year ago in most cases.

NATS FanMember since 2018
7 days ago
Reply to  gettwobrute79

oh Irvin is around till 2029. I hope Alvarez! I like watching him pitch. crafty! plus Jack Cebert projects as a 4th or 5th starter to Zips. We just got him. So we have 6 SPs, but only Cavalli is projected better than an innings eater. Well Alvarez always projects just better than 4 era. But, no one seems to believe it. Herz projects in the 3’s if he ever gets healthy.

darren
9 days ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Isn’t that okay, though, if you’re selling? I don’t think Toboni was surprised that his team’s offense took a hit. He is making these moves for the future.

NATS FanMember since 2018
8 days ago
Reply to  darren

This was a rare offense in how it scored. Best in Expos/Nationals franchise history. It was NOT your run of the mill great offense. I frankly felt we really needed to fix the pitching in the 8th and 9th innings and we would win W3. As long as the offense kept going. Probably not go farther though. Unfortunately, We didn’t fix anything and broke up the offense.

Last edited 8 days ago by NATS Fan
NATS FanMember since 2018
7 days ago
Reply to  darren

plus 8 fv35+/fv40 guys are just replacement level guys.