Darvish & Caratini to the Padres for Zach Davies & 4 Rookie Ball Prospects

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This would put Santana at #6 for us at the moment. I'm not sure how influenced they are by his .427 babip, though. He's already carrying around a 20% strikeout rate in his second pass at rookie ball. He screams high-risk.

 

FWIW, that 2018 line is the Dominican Summer League, and 2019 is Rookie ball proper in the AZL.

[Tim]

This would put Santana at #6 for us at the moment. I'm not sure how influenced they are by his .427 babip, though. He's already carrying around a 20% strikeout rate in his second pass at rookie ball. He screams high-risk.

 

FWIW, that 2018 line is the Dominican Summer League, and 2019 is Rookie ball proper in the AZL.

gotcha - thx for the correction. That's a little better.

[Bote McBoteface]

The Cubs suck a lot more now than they did when I woke up, and they sucked when I woke up. The Cubs are gonna lose me here. At least make good baseball trades as you sell off.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I even watched the Boosh and I don't entirely get the reference.

[toonsterwu]

Holy ... dammit I'm about to curse online. That was our return? I mean, I'd be the first to say that I'd never try to think I know more than front office folks, but dammit ... that's our return? Zach Davies is essentially the stud piece of the return????

 

Damn, a salary dump. For arguably our top, or 2nd best, trade asset. Damn.

 

If this was the return for Kris Bryant, I wouldn't have said much. For an ace level Darvish coming off a strong end of 19 and 20 ... even with 3 years left ... Damn. Damn. I thought Blake Snell set the market, so I knew we weren't getting a top end guy. I was pleasantly surprised with the Campusano/Morejob talks, but realistically, I was hoping for a Morejon and lottery tickets package. It's sort of hard to imagine selling high on Davies as well - sure feels like the Padres are selling high on him. Just not a big believer that he will keep performing like that, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

Well, if you are going this route, then you might as well sell it all. If there's a silver lining in all this, it's that it might finally set a course for the Cubs and make sure that they aren't waffling. We just decided to give them Caratini as well.

 

In saying all that, it's possible all four prospects turn out. It's just a disappointing trade in the moment. I can understand a lot of moves. I can understand that teams are spending less and tightening the belt due to the pandemic (whether fair or not is a totally separate issue, just that I understand it). This just baffles me that no other team stepped in to offer more than this. Or the Cubs were so in love with Preciado, Mena, and maybe Caissie that they just wanted them that bad.

[MWV]

I even watched the Boosh and I don't entirely get the reference.

Three consecutive interrobangs?!

 

I suck at the internet.

 

Anyway, this trade isn't great, I agree.

[toonsterwu]

I think the question now becomes is where do these guys rank in the Cubs prospect list?

 

Preciado should easily fit in the top 10, I imagine Caissie will make some but if he's in then Mena's got a case...Santana's a little more likely to stick at SS than Luis Verdugo, both broke out at 18 in the AZL with Verdugo also repeating...

 

Preciado is probably top 10 in our system. I'd guess 8-10 for most lists, but could be lower a bit. Not big enough on Caissie's swing to put him in the top 10. I'd be a bit surprised if he got in there. I'm more intrigued with Mena than Caissie. I think the other 3 will slide in the top 22 or so for the Cubs, dependent upon what people value (upside, floor, closeness to bigs).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's been a while since I thought very deeply about the Cubs so someone correct me if I have gaps needing filled in, but here's some scattered thoughts.

 

- Darvish is a 34 year old pitcher with multiple arm injuries who prior to this year hadn't hit 4 fWAR since 2013. I can forgive anyone who believes him to be on the Verlander trajectory, but the odds were severely stacked against him hitting 10 WAR in the last 3 years of the deal, maybe even stacked against 8 WAR. Combine that with him making 20 million(22 million LT) per year and layer on pandemic finances, I am not upset about the value the trade represents.

 

- That goes doubly so if the choice is between Darvish and the alternatives for cutting salary(read: Bryant). If you have an edict from ownership that payroll has to come down, trading Yu and rolling the dice on pitching roulette is a better short term plan than trying to get potential star-level production without Bryant or some other less palatable position player trades.

 

- Getting Vincent Adultman back to eat some rotation innings is fine, the Cubs have a very good track record getting the most out of low velocity at least.

 

- Speaking of Contreras, like someone pointed out, this points pretty strongly at him being the short term catcher. Or maybe said another way, if Contreras isn't the short term catcher then things are going to get 2012 levels of dire, which would be a huge unforced error.

 

- As far as the return goes, I'm okay with going with width over depth, especially in the current low information environment for prospects. I'd rather have 4 players of this caliber than one of the Morejon/pick your preferred name here.

 

- Having said that, getting 4 different prospects and having none of them being (optimistically!) less than 2 years away is unacceptable. I saw the argument on Twitter that they may have gravitated towards players they had been able to scout more recently with the draft and IFA, and while I'm sensitive to that you absolutely cannot punt all the value from the return for 3 years. Especially when you're going wide on the return, the player development revolution means that the previously lower ceiling AA guy represents a potential for above average or even great production that isn't so different from the rookie ball lottery ticket. I get that player development opportunities are easier to spot when you can see a player play, but I don't care, Davies being the only person who can help the MLB team before 2023 or later is a catastrophe.

 

- This is quite possibly the optimist in me, but I think the optics of this trade are going to lead to conclusions about the short term that are more dire than they'll turn out to be. Darvish had an incredible 2020 but had been more frustrating than brilliant for many years prior, and the team's 2021 success being hinged on him repeating that success isn't a great bet. If unloading his salary means they can get creative about reshaping the depth chart without having to spend energy trimming payroll, then that may be the best way forward(RIGBY caveats about ownership implied). Going exclusively long term with the return feels like a big miss in the process, and certainly lends credence to the idea of them stripping the team to the studs until it does or doesn't happen.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I even watched the Boosh and I don't entirely get the reference.

Three consecutive interrobangs?!

 

I suck at the internet.

 

Anyway, this trade isn't great, I agree.

Prob because I think in chess notation. This horsefeathers is a dubious blunder.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

[toonsterwu]

After reading Tom's post, I had to go back and look up the Harden trade, as I had entirely forgotten, outside of Donaldson and Gallagher, who the other two guys were. It's a fairly comparable trade. At the time, you got a bit more ceiling with Gallagher than what Davies offered, but Davies offers proven MLB ability. Donaldson and Caissie were upper level guys with issues, albeit different issues. The floor for Murton/Patterson would seem to balance out the upside risk for the younger talents.

 

He has a good point in comping that trade, and in hindsight, I was hoping for Morejon and lottery tickets (I wanted better, but that was my realistic hope), and this isn't that far off. If taking guys further away gave them guys who they felt had better upsides, then okay. I'm not much of the belief that you start moving pieces, that the Cubs have a legitimate window in the next 1-2 years, so getting talent to develop in the lower levels (Marquez and Davis are at best 2 years ahead of them, so they could all be pre-arb if they get to the majors) is fine. I mean, if we got Murton/Patterson type guys here, I'd probably be quite upset right now (and heck, I wasn't too pleased with the Cronenworth rumors, as I'm not huge on him). It's hard to believe they are going to reinvest said money right now - who and what would they target? Maybe it gives them a path to reallocate resources starting next offseason.

 

That said, still don't love the deal. I think it's partly colored by the fact that I don't believe in Davies all that much. Hope I'm dead wrong.

[toonsterwu]

Just to ramble on the trade a bit longer as I wait on something to get done -

 

We'll never know the deliberations, but for a Cubs organization and system that has struggled to develop pitching, it would've been nice if they had gotten another arm or two in the deal. Caissie just worries me on paper, and Santana, dunno, don't get a great feel, although the MilB profile makes him sound quite intriguing. Honestly, if they picked up an Omar Cruz or a Carlos Guarate in the deal, I would've been far more pleased. This obviously isn't a big issue in the grand scheme of things (and with lottery tickets, you take the highest upside and worry about position later, and neither Guarate or Cruz have huge upsides).

 

Part of me wonders if they try flipping Zach Davies sooner than later. It feels like a team could take a decent gamble on Davies for one year, and then wash their hands if they flounder, or move him again next year (or sign him to a deal).

[SaorsaDaonnan]

It’s tough to tell what is happening...

 

Was the point of the deal to continue cutting payroll to meet a diminished budget stipulated by ownership? Or were we already pared down to that level?

 

Was the point of the deal to free up cash to pursue Lester or another starter, on the theory that bulk innings are a greater need than an ace, given the oddity of the 60 game to 162 game transition?

 

Was the point to free up payroll space in 22-23 for an extension for Baez/Bryant/Contreras/Rizzo?

 

Was the point of the deal to operationalize a philosophy of intense aversion to pitching risk and intense preference for short term deals and flexibility?

 

Was the point of the deal to take advantage of the weakness of the division by remaining at the front of the pack despite subtractions while meaningfully improving the farm?

 

All of these questions, IMO, need to be addressed separately from any opinions about whether the general idea of a package of teenagers is a reasonable alternative to talent closer to the majors, and separately from any opinions about whether the four youngsters sound promising on their individual merits.

 

And then there’s one more question still bugging me after all that: what is the plan for 2022 and 2023? Are we semi-going for it this year, then running with the pack for a couple years and doing a lot of tinkering, then hoping for a new core to emerge mid-decade, just as finances recover and Jed comes up for an extension?

[Backtobanks]

For those of you pushing for a fire sale, what kind of shrewd deals do you think Hoyer can make on Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, etc. when this is all he could get for Darvish & Caratini? I will say that GMs should be lined up at Hoyer's door after this deal.

[gflore34]

For those of you pushing for a fire sale, what kind of shrewd deals do you think Hoyer can make on Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, etc. when this is all he could get for Darvish & Caratini? I will say that GMs should be lined up at Hoyer's door after this deal.

 

Looks that way now, lots of risk being taken on by the Cubs, historically that's never played out well. I'd say there's a better than average chance none of these guys are Cubs in two years than any one of the prospects panning out to be a productive MLB'er. Prospects which are all, what, 4+ years away at best? Zach Davies? Weren't the Cubs one of the few teams against which slow, slower and slowest was effective?

[CubinNY]

Fire sales are not how big market, smart teams operate. I suspect that the Ricketts are using the Cubs to pay down the debt for all their other business ventures, which I think is against the collective bargaining agreement. But baseball is a microcosm of America, so nothing will be done about it.

[Backtobanks]

For those of you pushing for a fire sale, what kind of shrewd deals do you think Hoyer can make on Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, etc. when this is all he could get for Darvish & Caratini? I will say that GMs should be lined up at Hoyer's door after this deal.

 

Looks that way now, lots of risk being taken on by the Cubs, historically that's never played out well. I'd say there's a better than average chance none of these guys are Cubs in two years than any one of the prospects panning out to be a productive MLB'er. Prospects which are all, what, 4+ years away at best? Zach Davies? Weren't the Cubs one of the few teams against which slow, slower and slowest was effective?

 

Remember when Bryant was being shopped and we couldn't get what we wanted for him. If I was a GM on a team that needed a 3B, I would be calling Jed with offers of 2 16-year-olds for Bryant plus cash.

[Stu]

Is this when we finally get Jake Peavy?

Well played sir. I spit my coffee onto my laptop from laughing when I read this!

[gflore34]

Is this when we finally get Jake Peavy?

Well played sir. I spit my coffee onto my laptop from laughing when I read this!

 

Might as well, probably still has better stuff then Davies, he's only 39.

[gflore34]

For those of you pushing for a fire sale, what kind of shrewd deals do you think Hoyer can make on Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, etc. when this is all he could get for Darvish & Caratini? I will say that GMs should be lined up at Hoyer's door after this deal.

 

Looks that way now, lots of risk being taken on by the Cubs, historically that's never played out well. I'd say there's a better than average chance none of these guys are Cubs in two years than any one of the prospects panning out to be a productive MLB'er. Prospects which are all, what, 4+ years away at best? Zach Davies? Weren't the Cubs one of the few teams against which slow, slower and slowest was effective?

 

Remember when Bryant was being shopped and we couldn't get what we wanted for him. If I was a GM on a team that needed a 3B, I would be calling Jed with offers of 2 16-year-olds for Bryant plus cash.

 

Look on the bright side, the Cubs could probably field one hell of a 19U team.

[Bertz]

At this point, I think the focus turns to putting yourself in the best possible position for the trade deadline

 

1. Hang on to all the walk-year guys. Bryant, Rizzo, Baez, Kimbrel...odds are one or two of these guys will resume being stars, and bring back far more in July than the lot of them would bring back right now

 

2. Pillow Contracts. Whether it's James Paxton, Kirby Yates, Corey Kluber, etc., there are several previously high-end pitchers looking to re-establish themselves. Use the saved Darvish money on a few of them, and build them back up with the magical pitching infrastructure. For example, MLBTR predicted $10M for Paxton and $5M for Yates. That'd cleanly work out to Paxton + Yates + Davies equalling Darvish's salary. Now you've got another shot or two at stars to deal at the deadline

 

Unless the team wildly exceeds expectations, I think you have to sell come July. Being on pace for 88 wins and the division is not enough to deviate. You blew that option when you traded Darvish for teenagers.

 

2022 is pretty much a clean slate. Payroll right now would project at ~$80M. And next year's FA class is killer. You've got to put yourself in a position for that to matter.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Don’t worry, it will all make sense when Davies puts together 3 ace-caliber months and we flip him for an epic haul.

[Outshined_One]

Don’t worry, it will all make sense when Davies puts together 3 ace-caliber months and we flip him for an epic haul.

 

Two words: Scott Feldman.

 

:beg:

[Bertz]

 

The trade looks MUCH better in this light. Eric has Preciado as a Top 100 guy, better than Ed Howard. Yeisson Santana is a 45 FB guy, meaning he'd be in the top 10 in a typical system. Ismael Mena is on the 40/45 line, depending on how reports of whether he can stick in CF shake out.

 

It's appalling how far away all these guys are, but it's looking more like the raw value is there at least.

[Rex Buckingham]

 

The trade looks MUCH better in this light. Eric has Preciado as a Top 100 guy, better than Ed Howard. Yeisson Santana is a 45 FB guy, meaning he'd be in the top 10 in a typical system. Ismael Mena is on the 40/45 line, depending on how reports of whether he can stick in CF shake out.

 

It's appalling how far away all these guys are, but it's looking more like the raw value is there at least.

 

Whoa, if Preciado is above Howard, that's a legit prospect.