What's Jameson Taillon's Trade Value, and Who Might Want Him?

[Matthew Trueblood]

Although he started the season on the injured list, the man on whom the Cubs risked nearly $70 million for four years is having a strong second campaign with the team. As the front office ponders ways to restructure the roster, though, could he be on the move?

Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-USA TODAY Sports

In his first 14 starts of the season, Jameson Taillon has thrown 81 innings and notched a 2.99 ERA. The latter figure would be the best of his big-league career, and there are some reasons to wonder how legitimate his success has been, but you can go all the way back to Jul. 1 of last year and find much the same narrative unfolding. Taillon has 177 innings pitched over that span and a 3.31 ERA, albeit with a FIP a fair bit higher than that.

In the second season of a four-year deal worth $68 million, Taillon is coming as advertised--much more so than he did early last season, when the deal looked like an albatross. He's made some adjustments to his pitch mix to induce more weak contact, and it's worked beautifully. While he's not missing bats the way you want a front-of-the-rotation starter to, he's allowing hard-hit balls on a lower percentage of all balls in play than he has in any of his previous big-league seasons.

Obviously, though, Taillon hasn't been able to save the Cubs' season. At 42-49, they're very likely to be sellers this month, and they need to reshape their roster in order to avoid being in the same place next year. They owe the burly righty about $8 million for the balance of this season, and $18 million for each of the next two seasons. A year ago, that contract looked like a nightmare. Now, could it be a movable one?

Firstly, let's tackle the logistical hurdle to trading Taillon. He got limited no-trade protection in the deal, and can block trades to 10 teams of his choice each year. That narrows the market a bit, if Taillon is firm in his stance on certain clubs, and even if he's not, the Cubs might have to give him a concrete incentive or reward of some kind to work around that clause if they want to move him to a team on his list. No one I have yet spoken to knows who's on his list for 2024, so that's a huge variable.

Next, we have to establish what an $18 million-per-year pitcher looks like in the current marketplace. Taillon only counts for $17 million against the competitive-balance tax threshold, because that's the annual average value of his deal, but last season was the cheap one. In real dollars, he'll cost $18 million in each of the next two seasons, and that's his total salary for this year, too.

The Cubs signed Taillon during a lucrative offseason for free-agent starters. Taijuan Walker (to whom Taillon has been far superior, for the last calendar year) signed for $72 million over the same number of years. This past winter was much more spare, though, with several hurlers settling for less than they'd hoped to get. Blake Snell and Jordan Montgomery were thought, at least, to be in a class above that of Taillon, but they had to settle for short-term deals. So did Jack Flaherty, Marcus Stroman, and others. The best comp for the Taillon deal signed this winter might be the four-year, $80-million contract Eduardo Rodríguez signed with the Diamondbacks, which is going very poorly so far.

On balance, Taillon's salary is reasonable, for a pitcher with his skills and durability. The final questions are how sustainable the success he's had this year really is, and what teams might believe in it enough to give the Cubs young talent in exchange for him. To answer those, let's consider some numbers.

Taillon's strikeout rate (19.2%, entering his start Tuesday night) is well below the league average, and would be the lowest of his career over anything like a full season. He's made up for it not only with his typical, superb control (a 5% walk rate that is one of the best in baseball), but by keeping the ball in the park. He averaged 26 home runs allowed per season over the last three, but is on pace to allow just 20 this year. Home-run prevention is tricky, though. It's not as easy a skill to sustain as strikeouts or walks, and giving up fly balls is still a dangerous way to live.

He seems to have ironed out some of the issues created when he tried to change his arsenal upon joining the Cubs last spring. It's probably very safe to estimate his ERA for the rest of this season (and next year, too) around 4.00, which is very respectable. He's not at his true talent level right now, but there might be teams inclined to buy into him a bit based on the results, and the floor for him feels much higher than it did a year ago.

Two teams stand out as potential suitors for Taillon's services, should the Cubs decide to pursue that opportunity. The Mets are a surprise contender (or semi-contender, but in New York, there's greater pressure to make the most of such moments), but their rotation started out thin and has gotten even thinner as they've battled injury issues. They could use an infusion of veteran stability, and Taillon's game would fit nicely in Citi Field, where long fly balls always seem to run out of steam shy of the wall. The Cubs could kick in some money to alleviate the painful tax burden of adding more salary for the $350-million 2024 Mets, but New York would then be able to bear the rest of the load, freeing up all the money owed to Taillon in 2025 and beyond.

Because of the money and the team's position to leverage adding him, it's unlikely New York would give up all that much for Taillon. The primary benefit of trading him there would be the increased flexibility for the coming offseasons, with a vacated rotation spot for young hurlers and a mid-level prospect or two as nice kickers.

The other interesting destination, though, would be a very different one: Cleveland. Taillon could help the AL Central-leading Guardians very much, as they've dealt with a barrage of injuries and will feel pressure from the Twins (and perhaps even the Royals) the rest of the way. That team isn't taking on anywhere close to $40 million in obligations to him, though. The Cubs would need to pay down half of the deal or more to facilitate a trade.

In exchange, though, they'd get a better prospect return from Cleveland. Eating some money would force the Cubs to (at least partially) replace Taillon and deal with the specter of paying some luxury taxes themselves in the next year or two, but it would give them the kind of young talent that actually makes a difference. The Guardians' level of need and opportunity should make them reasonably motivated buyers, so while Taillon won't net elite talent anywhere, he could get the team something interesting in a trade to a team with whom he'd be virtually guaranteed to start playoff games.

The likelihood of a Taillon trade this month is relatively low, but it's certainly not zero. For the first time in recent memory, the Cubs seem to have enough homegrown pitching depth to consider trading a productive veteran, and given their medium-term needs, that might be the wisest course. It's all about managing the situation, managing expectations, and pouncing if the right opportunity arises.

View full article

[mul21]

Based on the conclusions drawn here and TT's thoughts, moving him seems like a really dumb idea unless they plan on punting next season completely.  You're only getting salary relief for future seasons in one scenario and still have to fill that rotation spot and in the other, you're getting a likely far from sure thing prospect, still paying salary for a guy you don't have, and have to find someone o fill the rotation spot he's leaving.  This seems like a fool's errand to me unless someone is gong to pony up a top 25 prospect and even then it may not make much sense depending on their proximity to MLB and position they play.

[Matthew Trueblood]

4 hours ago, mul21 said:

Based on the conclusions drawn here and TT's thoughts, moving him seems like a really dumb idea unless they plan on punting next season completely.  You're only getting salary relief for future seasons in one scenario and still have to fill that rotation spot and in the other, you're getting a likely far from sure thing prospect, still paying salary for a guy you don't have, and have to find someone o fill the rotation spot he's leaving.  This seems like a fool's errand to me unless someone is gong to pony up a top 25 prospect and even then it may not make much sense depending on their proximity to MLB and position they play.

Well, even considering what a top-25 prospect is these days (less than it used to be!), there is NO WAY the Cubs are getting such a player for Jameson Taillon. So by your criteria, you can basically dismiss this idea and just hope it doesn't happen.

I don't think it WILL happen, either. It's the kind of move I would only make if I were a new front office, taking over and clearing chaff, with the job security that comes with being new. It'd be the kind of thing the Mets did last year, resetting for that season and for 2024 and looking toward 2025 a year and a half ahead of time. With the same owner and execs doing the decision-making, I doubt we'll see the Cubs do the same thing.

Now, if Hoyer is fired, either imminently or in the fall, Taillon immediately climbs four or five spots on my list of guys most likely to get traded. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that, anymore than on them getting a high-level prospect for him.