Donaldson to Blue Jays

[Guest]

I am; I'll take an established young player like Donaldson over a prospect any day.

 

Donaldson turns 29 in a week.

[Sammy Sofa]

Meh; thought he was 27. Still plenty of years of productivity. The Cubs have parts to move and it didn't take that much to get him and we're talking about a top 5 offensive player.

[RammyFanny]

Meh; thought he was 27. Still plenty of years of productivity. The Cubs have parts to move and it didn't take that much to get him and we're talking about a top 5 offensive player.

Ehhh.....

 

He wasn't even in the top 30 last year for wOBA, wRC+, etc. That's not a knock on him, he's a very good hitter, but assuming his true talent level is somewhere in between his last two seasons, top 5 would be a pretty extreme stretch. Factor in defense and position and then the "top 5" label would hold more merrit.

[Sammy Sofa]

I just said offensive to differentiate from pitchers to show I wasn't saying top 5 overall (though who knows, maybe he is); obviously we're talking all around value when it's come up talking about how he's not far off from Trout-levels.

[Guest]

Heh...I was about to call it out too and then I just figured maybe you meant top 5 offensive at his position.

[XZero771679666304]

Everyone chants about not selling low, then they get weird when a team actually sells high.

 

I don't think that many people have a problem with the A's selling Donaldson high. It was probably coming in the next nine months or so anyway.

 

It's the return that most people are taking issue with. Because they were selling high on a RH power bat who provides defensive value at a relatively premium position who has been one of the most valuable position players in baseball over the past couple years, many think they should have gotten more. I tend to agree.

[RammyFanny]

I just said offensive to differentiate from pitchers to show I wasn't saying top 5 overall (though who knows, maybe he is); obviously we're talking all around value when it's come up talking about how he's not far off from Trout-levels.

Gotcha.

[Sammy Sofa]

Everyone chants about not selling low, then they get weird when a team actually sells high.

 

I don't think that many people have a problem with the A's selling Donaldson high. It was probably coming in the next nine months or so anyway.

 

It's the return that most people are taking issue with. Because they were selling high on a RH power bat who provides defensive value at a relatively premium position who has been one of the most valuable position players in baseball over the past couple years, many think they should have gotten more. I tend to agree.

 

Same here, and that's really why this is lingering with me. I get why they moved him and I get the A's limitations in terms of what they can take back, but it still seems like a lopsided deal.

[toonsterwu]

Essentially, the A's bet on the health of Lawrie. A healthy Lawrie (and I didn't peak at the numbers right now, so maybe it's further off than I am thinking) will probably produce enough that the two arms and the upside of Barreto would make up the difference in the trade. Is that a great bet? While I like the trade for the A's (and certainly think this is a good trade for the Blue Jays as well), I can certainly understand people being apprehensive of Lawrie's injury history.

 

Total side note: Reading Donaldson's comments post-trade makes me sort of wish he had been a Cub. Seems like he would've been an awesome personality for the franchise. That said, I still have no gripes about that Harden deal - sold high on some high floor, low ceiling guys (Murton/EPatt), and gave up two intriguing guys at different ends of the development spectrum at the time, with Donaldson being a question mark of sorts because of positional uncertainty.

[SouthSideRyan]

Anyone who has gripes about the Harden trade should be punched in the face.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody griped about the Harden trade.

[gscool89]

I'd still do the Harden trade even knowing what Donaldson has become. One of the few things I've agreed with Hendry on.

[CubsInNC]

As a result of this deal, Kyle Blanks was DFA'd. Thoughts?

 

He's 3rd year arb eligible, but barely played last year due to injury, and was sub 1M. I think he's worth the claim. Worst case, is we waive him later in the offseason. Looking at fielding stats he seems passable in LF.

[hankp101]

The Harden trade and Nomar trade were so damn exciting

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Splendid Splinter]

The Harden trade and Nomar trade were so damn exciting

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Yep. I just looked at Nomar's career and I didn't realize that he was 30-31 when he was with the Cubs and the fact he was 35/36 in his last season. I was thinking he was 28ish when he got traded and retired by age 33.

[Clem Fandango]

As a result of this deal, Kyle Blanks was DFA'd. Thoughts?

 

He's 3rd year arb eligible, but barely played last year due to injury, and was sub 1M. I think he's worth the claim. Worst case, is we waive him later in the offseason. Looking at fielding stats he seems passable in LF.

He's got plantar fascitis, iirc. He's been injured on and off ever since he's been in the majors. Would be a nice power bat off the bench but beyond that no thanks.

[Clem Fandango]

I just said offensive to differentiate from pitchers to show I wasn't saying top 5 overall (though who knows, maybe he is); obviously we're talking all around value when it's come up talking about how he's not far off from Trout-levels.

He is actually, iirc (cant look it up to double check on my phone). Over the last two years he's 3rd most valuable player in baseball. Higher fWAR than any pitcher in that time span. Only Trout and McCutchen have been more valuable.

[treebird]

The Harden trade and Nomar trade were so damn exciting

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

true fact.

 

a couple people made mention of getting an mspaint together for the joe maddon thing. i don't think people recognize how eventful/exciting nomar and theo were. maddon is nice, but it's just a manager and nothing happened in the process. the maddon mspaint would just be two white men shaking hands near an rv and then ricky renteria frowning. i certainly won't say we were spoiled, as a team of our stature ought to have cool stuff happen more than every seven years, but those were two pretty interesting transactions.

[Sammy Sofa]

I just said offensive to differentiate from pitchers to show I wasn't saying top 5 overall (though who knows, maybe he is); obviously we're talking all around value when it's come up talking about how he's not far off from Trout-levels.

He is actually, iirc (cant look it up to double check on my phone). Over the last two years he's 3rd most valuable player in baseball. Higher fWAR than any pitcher in that time span. Only Trout and McCutchen have been more valuable.

 

http://i.imgur.com/kvx6bbj.gif

[KingCubsFan]

 

I am; I'll take an established young player like Donaldson over a prospect any day. Especially since someone like Baez almost certainly would have been in the deal, so to act like the Cubs are likely facing some kind of overflow of starting infielders in the wake of a Donaldson trade is faulty.

 

I'm not saying that so much as that there are more pressing areas to target via trade, and to expend trade resources on. Would Donaldson have been a boon to the team? For sure, but there are far more glaring weaknesses to address.

 

I am chomping at the bit for the Cubs to make a meaningful move, but at the same time I'm not going to get bent out of shape every time another team adds a player that the Cubs could have gotten and made fit, just because. Now if SP, OF and catchers start moving for prices the Cubs could have bested, then I'll get a lot more angsty.

Why does it have to be for one of those positions? If you trade for Donaldson, you've essentially gained an outfielder since Bryant now has nowhere else to play. Catchers shouldn't cost that much. As for SP, [expletive] pitchers.

[ConstableRabbit]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-thing-about-josh-donaldsons-defense/

[SouthSideRyan]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-thing-about-josh-donaldsons-defense/

 

Shouldn't guys with greater range make more throwing errors?

[Sammy Sofa]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-thing-about-josh-donaldsons-defense/

 

Shouldn't guys with greater range make more throwing errors?

 

Yeah, this seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy-kinda thing; he puts himself in the position to make more throwing errors because of the balls he can get to that so many others can't.

[WrigleyField 22]

As in he puts himself in more difficult throwing positions or he has more throws? I can't imagine the increased throws should result in that much additional errors as the fld% would remain constant.

 

If it's just that the throws are more difficult, isn't a non-throw part of the decision process a good defender needs to have. Better to field a tough grounder and allow the base hit than make an errant throw an add bases. You still have saved bases, including on advancing runners- you have to know not to give that right back.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-thing-about-josh-donaldsons-defense/

 

Shouldn't guys with greater range make more throwing errors?

 

I can see both sides there. Throwing errors as a proportion of total chances/throws would be more useful than the raw throwing error totals. At the same time though, throwing errors can sometimes be more damaging than not getting to the ball at all, so the fact that he's making all those errors does eat into the value of having that range.