Morosi: "Cubs Among Viable Candidates for Garrett Crochet"

I think this is an interesting team to see pop up. It's quite specific, mentioning the Reds and the Cubs, though is framed more like speculative thought than reporting - hard to tell which it is when you consider both of those things. I'd imagine someone like Jefferson Rojas would be a name the Cubs would certainly be sending back in a deal. And potentially a Cam Smith - while he rocketed through the system last year to Double-A, his ETA is likely 2026  (late) or 2027 moreso than anything else. 

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think this is an interesting team to see pop up. It's quite specific, mentioning the Reds and the Cubs, though is framed more like speculative thought than reporting - hard to tell which it is when you consider both of those things. I'd imagine someone like Jefferson Rojas would be a name the Cubs would certainly be sending back in a deal. And potentially a Cam Smith - while he rocketed through the system last year to Double-A, his ETA is likely 2026  (late) or 2027 moreso than anything else. 

Deal! Make it happen Jed.

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

Deal! Make it happen Jed.

Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily it going back, but if we're thinking about prospects "a bit further away" these are names I think would be popping up. 

Looking back to when the Cubs traded Darvish, it's a slightly different scenario, but it was:
1. Owen Caissie, 18, 2nd round overslot
2. Reggie Preciado, 18, IFA bonus baby
 

As your two "big" gets, with Preciado getting some top-100 love places. And then two other smaller, 18 year olds. So for the Cubs, you'd think they'll pay more because Crotchet is younger and cheaper, but I'd assume that's a framework the Sox might look at. Younger prospects, and a few of them. Could add in the likes of Valdez and Cruz.

Watching Jed sink his tenure by misestimating a big pitching trade addition from the White Sox after Theo did a similar thing for inverted reasons would be some real East of Eden level irony.

That oversells my confidence that Crochet is bad, but boy is that a huge gamble to take with your 'win or else' season.  Crochet had 6ish weeks of lights out starting, then after that he stopped providing length.  After June 30th, he never got more than 12 outs in an outing, and went from 41% of batters faced being the first time through the order to 59%.  He also had results suffer with a number of objectively bad outings.  Maybe he could've gone deeper with similar success as the early part of the season, but couldn't be allowed to given innings limits on his arm.  And naturally the stuff and pedigree(to say nothing of Cubs pitching infrastructure vs. the White Sox) could give some optimism.  But I would be really apprehensive about paying the steep cost it would take to get him.

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily it going back, but if we're thinking about prospects "a bit further away" these are names I think would be popping up. 

Looking back to when the Cubs traded Darvish, it's a slightly different scenario, but it was:
1. Owen Caissie, 18, 2nd round overslot
2. Reggie Preciado, 18, IFA bonus baby
 

As your two "big" gets, with Preciado getting some top-100 love places. And then two other smaller, 18 year olds. So for the Cubs, you'd think they'll pay more because Crotchet is younger and cheaper, but I'd assume that's a framework the Sox might look at. Younger prospects, and a few of them. Could add in the likes of Valdez and Cruz.

I know you are just balling. My point is give them the younger prospects. A couple of them, in fact. If yiu can add Crochet without giving up Shaw, Mo, Horton you figure it out. 

The teams are an absolute perfect match on paper.  Acquiring an impact talent on a $3M salary is Jed's dream move, while the Sox would clearly like to be able to show progress this year with near MLB ready talent.  TBD if the Sox are willing to suffer the PR or Jed is willing to win a likely fierce bidding war, but the deal makes all kinds of sense.

11 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Watching Jed sink his tenure by misestimating a big pitching trade addition from the White Sox after Theo did a similar thing for inverted reasons would be some real East of Eden level irony.

That oversells my confidence that Crochet is bad, but boy is that a huge gamble to take with your 'win or else' season.  Crochet had 6ish weeks of lights out starting, then after that he stopped providing length.  After June 30th, he never got more than 12 outs in an outing, and went from 41% of batters faced being the first time through the order to 59%.  He also had results suffer with a number of objectively bad outings.  Maybe he could've gone deeper with similar success as the early part of the season, but couldn't be allowed to given innings limits on his arm.  And naturally the stuff and pedigree(to say nothing of Cubs pitching infrastructure vs. the White Sox) could give some optimism.  But I would be really apprehensive about paying the steep cost it would take to get him.

I don't think any of the teams are going to consider last season an indication of his performance potential. The WS were one of the most dysfunctional organizations in the sport's history.  

7 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Watching Jed sink his tenure by misestimating a big pitching trade addition from the White Sox after Theo did a similar thing for inverted reasons would be some real East of Eden level irony.

That oversells my confidence that Crochet is bad, but boy is that a huge gamble to take with your 'win or else' season.  Crochet had 6ish weeks of lights out starting, then after that he stopped providing length.  After June 30th, he never got more than 12 outs in an outing, and went from 41% of batters faced being the first time through the order to 59%.  He also had results suffer with a number of objectively bad outings.  Maybe he could've gone deeper with similar success as the early part of the season, but couldn't be allowed to given innings limits on his arm.  And naturally the stuff and pedigree(to say nothing of Cubs pitching infrastructure vs. the White Sox) could give some optimism.  But I would be really apprehensive about paying the steep cost it would take to get him.

I'm just guessing, but looking at his very sharp cut off after June 30th that the White Sox decided to limit innings and hoped to trade him at the TDL or in the offseason without putting too much on his arm or causing an injury. The ERA shot up, but if we look at a few of the splits between those two time periods:

OD - June 30th: 35.3 K%, 5 BB%,, 75% LOB, .286 BABIP, 96.9 mph velo
Post - June 30th - 34.7 K5, 6.6 BB%, .387 BABIP, 71 LOB%, 97.6 mph velo

I think it was just bad luck (BABIP way up, but didn't massively increase home run rate or decrease strikeout rate or velocity). and I suspect that the White Sox just really massively limited him after that on the innings. I also think that's probably something the Sox would be willing to discuss openly in the negotiations, so I think these are things the Cubs can get a peak on that we can't. 

2 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I'm just guessing, but looking at his very sharp cut off after June 30th that the White Sox decided to limit innings and hoped to trade him at the TDL or in the offseason without putting too much on his arm or causing an injury. The ERA shot up, but if we look at a few of the splits between those two time periods:

OD - June 30th: 35.3 K%, 5 BB%,, 75% LOB, .286 BABIP, 96.9 mph velo
Post - June 30th - 34.7 K5, 6.6 BB%, .387 BABIP, 71 LOB%, 97.6 mph velo

I think it was just bad luck (BABIP way up, but didn't massively increase home run rate or decrease strikeout rate or velocity). and I suspect that the White Sox just really massively limited him after that on the innings. I also think that's probably something the Sox would be willing to discuss openly in the negotiations, so I think these are things the Cubs can get a peak on that we can't. 

Oh I’m very sure it was intentionally done to protect his arm, whether it was with an eye on a deadline trade or not.  My concern is how much that shielded him from the situations that would have driven down his performance, even if his actual results had some bad luck.  For half the season he was closer to peak Keegan Thompson in usage than a front of rotation starter, and that impacts how optimistic I am that his Spring performance is sustainable.

12 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Oh I’m very sure it was intentionally done to protect his arm, whether it was with an eye on a deadline trade or not.  My concern is how much that shielded him from the situations that would have driven down his performance, even if his actual results had some bad luck.  For half the season he was closer to peak Keegan Thompson in usage than a front of rotation starter, and that impacts how optimistic I am that his Spring performance is sustainable.

I think the first half is pretty sustainable myself just really diving into it. In the first half, he actually got less chase, and had slightly lower velo. I'd imagine part of that was that he was able to juice back a little more knowing he was going four innings instead of seven, but interesting to note. His strike quality was nearly identical, no uptick in non-competitive strikes, and strike% was under 2% difference. He threw his cutter a bit more than the fastball in the second half, which again, interesting to note, but nothing I think is other than that. He got more ground balls in the second half than the first, but did give up a bit less harmless contact (but still within a slightly better-than-league-average range). 

Long and the short of it, most of what he was doing in the first half, he was doing in the second, and those things like chase, whiff, strike%...they're that of a pretty elite arm. If there was a big difference between the two sides, I might find cause for concern. The biggest indicator for me is that uptick in velocity in the shorter outings - it came from somewhere. Just my take on it; it says "I'm adding extra juice to my pitches because I know I've got more in the tank than they're letting me empty out", which makes me feel pretty good about Crotchet being able to be a very good arm for 150 IP. I'm not sure he'll ever be a 180 IP guy, but the way the pitching is moving, that might not be the worst thing? 

12 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Oh I’m very sure it was intentionally done to protect his arm, whether it was with an eye on a deadline trade or not.  My concern is how much that shielded him from the situations that would have driven down his performance, even if his actual results had some bad luck.  For half the season he was closer to peak Keegan Thompson in usage than a front of rotation starter, and that impacts how optimistic I am that his Spring performance is sustainable.

This is very much blunt and imperfect, but the league average FIP 1st time through the order for SPs was 3.92 this year.  Overall FIP for SPs was 4.15.  About a quarter of a run.

Crochet's FIP 1st time through the order from July onward was 3.10.  So even if we add on that typical penalty he's a fairly elite SP (Max Fried had a 3.33 FIP this year for instance).  Hell even if we double it he's in line with Corbin Burnes, Tanner Bibee, and Bryce Miller in the 3.50s.

29 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think the first half is pretty sustainable myself just really diving into it. In the first half, he actually got less chase, and had slightly lower velo. I'd imagine part of that was that he was able to juice back a little more knowing he was going four innings instead of seven, but interesting to note. His strike quality was nearly identical, no uptick in non-competitive strikes, and strike% was under 2% difference. He threw his cutter a bit more than the fastball in the second half, which again, interesting to note, but nothing I think is other than that. He got more ground balls in the second half than the first, but did give up a bit less harmless contact (but still within a slightly better-than-league-average range). 

Long and the short of it, most of what he was doing in the first half, he was doing in the second, and those things like chase, whiff, strike%...they're that of a pretty elite arm. If there was a big difference between the two sides, I might find cause for concern. The biggest indicator for me is that uptick in velocity in the shorter outings - it came from somewhere. Just my take on it; it says "I'm adding extra juice to my pitches because I know I've got more in the tank than they're letting me empty out", which makes me feel pretty good about Crotchet being able to be a very good arm for 150 IP. I'm not sure he'll ever be a 180 IP guy, but the way the pitching is moving, that might not be the worst thing? 

It's less that I think Crochet's spring performance was flukish, per se, it's that his rest of season usage plus lack of track record means there is no opportunity for one of the counterfactuals, which is that his stuff/results may not make it through 5-6 innings 25 times without a potentially large hit.  To that end:

17 minutes ago, Bertz said:

This is very much blunt and imperfect, but the league average FIP 1st time through the order for SPs was 3.92 this year.  Overall FIP for SPs was 4.15.  About a quarter of a run.

Crochet's FIP 1st time through the order from July onward was 3.10.  So even if we add on that typical penalty he's a fairly elite SP (Max Fried had a 3.33 FIP this year for instance).  Hell even if we double it he's in line with Corbin Burnes, Tanner Bibee, and Bryce Miller in the 3.50s.

Crochet's sOPS+ 1st time through the order was elite, 68.  2nd time through the order was slightly below league average, 102.  That makes me hesitant to think an average scaling of his first to 2nd/3rd time through the order is going to hold true.

This doesn't mean I think Crochet is bad or not useful to the Cubs, it's essentially a souped up version of the Boyd signing.  But given that his cost would require him to be the biggest trade swing the team can make for 18-24+ months, and they only get him for 2 years, it's a very large gamble.

1 minute ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

 

It's less that I think Crochet's spring performance was flukish, per se, it's that his rest of season usage plus lack of track record means there is no opportunity for one of the counterfactuals, which is that his stuff/results may not make it through 5-6 innings 25 times without a potentially large hit.  To that end:

I think that's fair. I'm just not sure I share the same worry. Like I said, I think the uptick on the velocity even in the shorter outings as the season waned makes me pretty confident that there's a dude there that you can bank on for 150 IP on the season. That's a 5IP guy most days (figure if he's making 25-28 starts, that's 140 IP or so) with some spikes at 6 IP. But I think the days of the 6+ IP guy is kind of falling behind us, for better or worse.

Crochet probably requires the team to have a deeper than average bullpen knowing that he's going to Blake Snell himself into 5 quality innings most starts (though in a different version of why he goes 5). But on a per-rate basis, I think he's going to be about as good as you can find this offseason so I'm pretty full-steam ahead on the Crotchet concept. 

The White Sox are 100% going to want position players so some combination of Alcantara/Caissie/Triantos/Rojas is what I'd be dangling. I'd very much like to keep Shaw/Cam/Ballesteros out of a deal. 

Something like Caissie+Triantos/Rojas+Southisene is a lot of position player talent.

26 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Hot take: Still prefer one of the two highest ceiling Seattle RHs. This prioritization of contracts first, and like that’s almost always the lead in with Crochet, is boring and gross as if there’s any real threat on that front. I’m not falling over myself to move for yet another TJ’d arm either 

We go over this every few months, you can pretend that all teams aren't trying to fit into finite rosters and budgets, but that doesn't make them a fake consideration.  But more to your actual objection, is there any indication outside of 'maybe the Mariners trade a starter' rumors that the biggest rotation arms are actually available?  There's zero motivation to trade Kirby, and while Gilbert's at least got an arb salary he's still likely going for a big enough cost that a contending team is unlikely to pull the trigger when they can trade a contract(Castillo) for salary relief or a lesser arm to get a useful piece.

33 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Hot take: Still prefer one of the two highest ceiling Seattle RHs. This prioritization of contracts first, and like that’s almost always the lead in with Crochet, is boring and gross as if there’s any real threat on that front. I’m not falling over myself to move for yet another TJ’d arm either 

My biggest fear with Crochet is injury. For that reason I think I would rather have Kirby/Gilbert instead. Plus they have longer team control and all things equal I would rather have a righty in the rotation. I am just not sure the Mariners want prospects for either of those guys. I do think the Sox match up better. 

2 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I mean make up enough rules to build a system that encourages that kind of lazy evaluating and thinking…Gilbert’s been speculated abt for multiple years now, longer than Crochet even, and both are still with their clubs so maybe neither is available and this is all a waste of time 

I also believe that 99% of why Crochet is so heavily speculated on is more bureaucratic nonsense: the White Sox aren’t shed-dueled to contend, certainly haven’t filed any ppwrk with the proper departments, and therefore must be Sellers within the boring binary that doesn’t even really exist. They’d be wise to keep him

Crochet is 2 years from FA, do you really think the White Sox have any real path to contention before then?  That's why he's available and someone like Gilbert on a team who believes they can be competitive is less likely when they would have to recoup some of his value in a less certain/immediate form(prospects) if traded.

The only time any of the Mariners starters get mentioned in trade is from other teams blog posts making up hypothetical trades for them. The reason they are popular names is because the Mariners are trying to figure out a way to fill a couple offensive positions and the depth of their starters is a logical way to get it. However, it's never been suggested that they are actually looking to trade from that depth. Castillo is likely to be the only name they realistically discuss as a complete salary dump so they can make some moves in FA.

4 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

So extend him? Doesn’t seem like rocket science. They have nothing committed, he’s among the rarest talents in the game, there’s a fine farm ready to contribute…They’re as obligated as the Mariners to move a TOR talent

Unlike fans, teams dont believe an entire roster of prospects is a legit winning proposal. Unlike the Mariners, the White Sox publicly made Crochet available in trade last year.

Based on Fangraphs current depth charts, the Cubs have the #18 rotation in baseball right now.  It's not quite as bad as that sounds, there are 6 teams ahead of them by less than a win.  But still it's an average to below average rotation right now, with youth you can hope on for more but not count on.

If you swap Assad and Kilian's 167 innings and 1.3 WAR for Crochet's 170 innings and 4.9 WAR, the Cubs jump all the way to #4, a couple tenths of a win behind the Braves.

31 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

No they didn’t, specifically took him off the table even 

 

 

That's not taking him off the table, but ok. He was very much available in trade and was actually expected to be traded. Simply nothing came to fruition before the deadline. That tweet came out 7 minutes before the deadline.

Just now, TomtheBombadil said:

Ah, he was fully available everyone wanted him and nothing happened weird how that worked out eh 

As if trades don't fall through because 2 teams can't come to an agreement on compensation.

It's like Willson Contreras didn't exist to you.

Mariners would be dumb to trade Kirby or Gilbert, it's not happening.  They're trying to contend not rebuild

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

My biggest fear with Crochet is injury. 

Why

10 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

This is unique to Crochet, and not something the Mariners or anyone else would run into, how? What does Willson Contreras, who netted the Cubs a QO pick in the same offseason they signed the QO’d Swanson, have to do with anything? 

Do you even know what you are talking about at this point?

Who said it was unique and something the Mariners wouldn't run into? The Mariners have never come out and offered up any of their pitchers for trade. The White Sox did, whether you want to believe that or not is up to you. Multiple teams were in discussions with the White Sox and then a week before the deadline Crochet made a statement that any trade would have to come with a contract extension with the new team, which scared a few of those teams off from pursuing further. The Cubs were publicly trading Contreras at the deadline as well with multiple teams in on him and actually had a deal in place with the Astros before the owner of the Astros vetoed it.

It's mind blowing how little understanding you have of what you talking about.