Cubs Have Engaged Diamondbacks, Athletics on Potential Package Deals to Fill Multiple Needs

[Matthew Trueblood]

Image courtesy of © Jayne Kamin-Oncea-Imagn Images

The third Wild Card berth is becoming a blight on the trade deadline—perhaps more with each passing year. As teams wrestle with the question of whether to buy or sell, many stay astride the fence (or refuse to consider relocating to the selling side) much longer than they did under any previous playoff format. Purists are well within their rights to rebuke the new system as one that treats middle-of-the-pack demi-losers like champions, but teams know that the playoff dollars still fill up the coffers either way—and that most fans aren't purists, anyway.

Thus, as teams like the Chicago Cubs scour the trade market in search of help in multiple departments of their roster this month, the pickings are slim. By any reasonable reckoning, the Twins need a bit of a shakeup, and they're not in any position to hope for more than a road Wild Card series this fall. Yet, they're not fully committed to selling, thanks to a string of three series wins before the All-Star break. The Royals just traded for Adam Frazier, which more assuredly reflects a general confusion within the organization than signals either a buying or a selling posture, but they certainly haven't declared themselves open for business. The Rangers, the Guardians, the Reds, the Diamondbacks and even the Angels remain in various states of self-delusion; the number of teams who are ready and willing to talk about trading present value for the hope of more in the future can be counted on one hand.

We knew it would be this way; this is the new annual dance. Even 13 days before the deadline, clarity is promised to no one, and easy, early-2000s-vintage buyer-and-seller trades aren't in vogue anymore. The Cubs, however, are among the handful of teams who can't afford to simply hope the right such deal burbles up by accident in the shadow of the deadline near the end of the month. They've already begun engaging teams about trades that would break out of the traditional box for July moves, by doing some one-stop shopping and/or by swapping current big-leaguers out for others.

Sources familiar with talks identified the Diamondbacks and the Athletics as teams with whom the Cubs have discussed multi-player deals in which they would check off more than one box on their shopping list. All permutations of such moves differ from one another, but the broad rationale for this approach is as follows:

1. The Cubs have spent the last four years trying to build a sustainable winner, which means not mortgaging the farm every time they're in a winning position.
2. They have money to spend at this deadline—perhaps as much as $15 million they can add to the payroll, which is the equivalent of about $35 million in full-season salary for the players in question. 
3. By bundling a veteran on an expensive deal with another player on a cheaper contract or with more team control, the Chicago front office is hoping to find a discount on the players they acquire. Taking on two players in a trade makes it incrementally easier to send back prospects who require 40-man roster spots, and taking on money always greases the skids. 

Other front offices are aware of those reasons why the Cubs might prefer such deals, too, of course. Trades like those have become very rare over the last decade-plus, because many front offices believe they get more for players by moving them individually in almost all cases. If the needle could be threaded, though, it could be a game-changer in the NL Central.

The obvious names who might be involved in a deal like this with the A's are Luis Severino, Luis Urías and Mason Miller. Two-thirds of a year into a three-year deal worth $67 million, Severino has become a distraction in West Sacramento, not by being a bad guy, but by not shutting up about how lousy the conditions and circumstances of the team's extremely temporary home are. Though the Athletics need to keep their payroll above a certain threshold to avoid a bare-knuckled fight with the MLB Players Association and the loss of their revenue-sharing recipient status, Severino has begun to look like an unappealing way to spend those dollars. His surface-level numbers look ugly this year, but the Cubs could happily slot him into the back half of their rotation if they got a little bit of cash in the deal to offset his salary.

Urías, of course, is a former Brewers infielder who played under Craig Counsell for multiple seasons. He's made a significant swing change since then, though, and is hitting .239/.320/.363 this year. That would be underwhelming for a third baseman, but the Cubs are already getting very underwhelming output from Matt Shaw and from similar bench pieces Jon Berti and Vidal Bruján.

The big catch, of course, would be Miller. One of the hardest-throwing pitchers in the sport, he also sports a wicked slider and has struck out over 40% of opposing batters since the start of 2024. He's issued a few more walks this year than last and his ERA isn't as pretty as it was in the past, but Miller belongs on any list of the 10 most dominant relievers in the league. He's under team control for four seasons beyond 2025, though he'll be arbitration-eligible for all of them as a Super Two player. Teams are calling about Miller, and don't feel as roundly rejected as they were last summer.

A multi-player trade with Arizona, meanwhile, would almost certainly center on Eugenio Suárez, plus either Zac Gallen or Merrill Kelly. It's been a brutal season for Gallen (one reason why Arizona is even leaning toward selling at the deadline), but his stuff is still interesting and the remnants of the great pitcher he's been for much of his career still peek out from time to time. He would be one solid potential addition to the Cubs rotation, and Kelly (by means of having had a better year thus far) might be an even more exciting one at this point. Meanwhile, Suárez would be a major offensive upgrade over Shaw at the hot corner and would make the team's lineup almost impossible to navigate.

A deal combining any two of Gallen, Kelly and Suárez would cost the Cubs a heavy prospect price, but the one-stop shop could be worth it. Right now, that kind of deal feels more far-fetched than a multi-piece swap with the A's, but if the Cubs were willing to deal one of their top tier of young non-stars (Cade Horton, Owen Caissie, Shaw, or Kevin Alcántara), that could change.

Similar deals bundling Jhoan Duran or Joe Ryan with Willi Castro or Chris Paddack, of the Twins; Seth Lugo and Carlos Estévez or Jonathan India; and Mitch Keller with David Bednar or Ke'Bryan Hayes make varying levels of sense, too. However, there's no indication yet that the Cubs have found traction with Minnesota, Kansas City or Pittsburgh on this kind of trade. Trading for multiple players from one team (each of whom would individually improve the Cubs' chances to reach the World Series) would make even trading Caissie, Moisés Ballesteros, Cade Horton or Jefferson Rojas palatable, while for the sellers, getting access to that caliber of prospect has been a priority in all talks with the Cubs.

Something big will happen before the July 31 trade deadline. The big question is what shape the Cubs' biggest move will take. Since their needs exceed their means, creativity could be in order.

View full article

[Rcal10]

13 minutes ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

Image courtesy of © Jayne Kamin-Oncea-Imagn Images

The third Wild Card berth is becoming a blight on the trade deadline—perhaps more with each passing year. As teams wrestle with the question of whether to buy or sell, many stay astride the fence (or refuse to consider relocating to the selling side) much longer than they did under any previous playoff format. Purists are well within their rights to rebuke the new system as one that treats middle-of-the-pack demi-losers like champions, but teams know that the playoff dollars still fill up the coffers either way—and that most fans aren't purists, anyway.

Thus, as teams like the Chicago Cubs scour the trade market in search of help in multiple departments of their roster this month, the pickings are slim. By any reasonable reckoning, the Twins need a bit of a shakeup, and they're not in any position to hope for more than a road Wild Card series this fall. Yet, they're not fully committed to selling, thanks to a string of three series wins before the All-Star break. The Royals just traded for Adam Frazier, which more assuredly reflects a general confusion within the organization than signals either a buying or a selling posture, but they certainly haven't declared themselves open for business. The Rangers, the Guardians, the Reds, the Diamondbacks and even the Angels remain in various states of self-delusion; the number of teams who are ready and willing to talk about trading present value for the hope of more in the future can be counted on one hand.

We knew it would be this way; this is the new annual dance. Even 13 days before the deadline, clarity is promised to no one, and easy, early-2000s-vintage buyer-and-seller trades aren't in vogue anymore. The Cubs, however, are among the handful of teams who can't afford to simply hope the right such deal burbles up by accident in the shadow of the deadline near the end of the month. They've already begun engaging teams about trades that would break out of the traditional box for July moves, by doing some one-stop shopping and/or by swapping current big-leaguers out for others.

Sources familiar with talks identified the Diamondbacks and the Athletics as teams with whom the Cubs have discussed multi-player deals in which they would check off more than one box on their shopping list. All permutations of such moves differ from one another, but the broad rationale for this approach is as follows:

1. The Cubs have spent the last four years trying to build a sustainable winner, which means not mortgaging the farm every time they're in a winning position.
2. They have money to spend at this deadline—perhaps as much as $15 million they can add to the payroll, which is the equivalent of about $35 million in full-season salary for the players in question. 
3. By bundling a veteran on an expensive deal with another player on a cheaper contract or with more team control, the Chicago front office is hoping to find a discount on the players they acquire. Taking on two players in a trade makes it incrementally easier to send back prospects who require 40-man roster spots, and taking on money always greases the skids. 

Other front offices are aware of those reasons why the Cubs might prefer such deals, too, of course. Trades like those have become very rare over the last decade-plus, because many front offices believe they get more for players by moving them individually in almost all cases. If the needle could be threaded, though, it could be a game-changer in the NL Central.

The obvious names who might be involved in a deal like this with the A's are Luis Severino, Luis Urías and Mason Miller. Two-thirds of a year into a three-year deal worth $67 million, Severino has become a distraction in West Sacramento, not by being a bad guy, but by not shutting up about how lousy the conditions and circumstances of the team's extremely temporary home are. Though the Athletics need to keep their payroll above a certain threshold to avoid a bare-knuckled fight with the MLB Players Association and the loss of their revenue-sharing recipient status, Severino has begun to look like an unappealing way to spend those dollars. His surface-level numbers look ugly this year, but the Cubs could happily slot him into the back half of their rotation if they got a little bit of cash in the deal to offset his salary.

Urías, of course, is a former Brewers infielder who played under Craig Counsell for multiple seasons. He's made a significant swing change since then, though, and is hitting .239/.320/.363 this year. That would be underwhelming for a third baseman, but the Cubs are already getting very underwhelming output from Matt Shaw and from similar bench pieces Jon Berti and Vidal Bruján.

The big catch, of course, would be Miller. One of the hardest-throwing pitchers in the sport, he also sports a wicked slider and has struck out over 40% of opposing batters since the start of 2024. He's issued a few more walks this year than last and his ERA isn't as pretty as it was in the past, but Miller belongs on any list of the 10 most dominant relievers in the league. He's under team control for four seasons beyond 2025, though he'll be arbitration-eligible for all of them as a Super Two player. Teams are calling about Miller, and don't feel as roundly rejected as they were last summer.

A multi-player trade with Arizona, meanwhile, would almost certainly center on Eugenio Suárez, plus either Zac Gallen or Merrill Kelly. It's been a brutal season for Gallen (one reason why Arizona is even leaning toward selling at the deadline), but his stuff is still interesting and the remnants of the great pitcher he's been for much of his career still peek out from time to time. He would be one solid potential addition to the Cubs rotation, and Kelly (by means of having had a better year thus far) might be an even more exciting one at this point. Meanwhile, Suárez would be a major offensive upgrade over Shaw at the hot corner and would make the team's lineup almost impossible to navigate.

A deal combining any two of Gallen, Kelly and Suárez would cost the Cubs a heavy prospect price, but the one-stop shop could be worth it. Right now, that kind of deal feels more far-fetched than a multi-piece swap with the A's, but if the Cubs were willing to deal one of their top tier of young non-stars (Cade Horton, Owen Caissie, Shaw, or Kevin Alcántara), that could change.

Similar deals bundling Jhoan Duran or Joe Ryan with Willi Castro or Chris Paddack, of the Twins; Seth Lugo and Carlos Estévez or Jonathan India; and Mitch Keller with David Bednar or Ke'Bryan Hayes make varying levels of sense, too. However, there's no indication yet that the Cubs have found traction with Minnesota, Kansas City or Pittsburgh on this kind of trade. Trading for multiple players from one team (each of whom would individually improve the Cubs' chances to reach the World Series) would make even trading Caissie, Moisés Ballesteros, Cade Horton or Jefferson Rojas palatable, while for the sellers, getting access to that caliber of prospect has been a priority in all talks with the Cubs.

Something big will happen before the July 31 trade deadline. The big question is what shape the Cubs' biggest move will take. Since their needs exceed their means, creativity could be in order.

 

View full article

 

No thank you to Az if it means losing either Horton or a top 5 prospect. Not for 2 rentals. I don’t like Severino, however, getting Miller does make some sense, since they can have him for several years. I am fine with one stop shopping and even losing a top prospect to do it, but for a top prospect they have to get at least one of the guys back who is not a rental. 

[gflore34]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

No thank you to Az if it means losing either Horton or a top 5 prospect. Not for 2 rentals. I don’t like Severino, however, getting Miller does make some sense, since they can have him for several years. I am fine with one stop shopping and even losing a top prospect to do it, but for a top prospect they have to get at least one of the guys back who is not a rental. 

I'm thinking the price tag of Severino, Urias and Kelly/Gallen would not include Cassie or Wiggins, except, I believe, for Severino, they're all rentals.  So probably multiple lottery tickets and one of Alcantara, Triantos, Long, etc.?  I know you don't like Severino but, he's stated he does not like pitching in Sacramento, that may have something to do with his, thus far, terrible season?  As much as I'd like it, I don't think Suarez is a realistic possibility, despite being a rental, he'll be in demand and extremely, artificially expensive.  Urias, maybe even, Urshela, Moncada or someone of this ilk is going to be Jed' attempt at 3B help.

[Bertz]

Something to keep in mind with the A's broadly is their new park this year has been the second most hitter friendly in the league after Coors.  And park factors at places like Fangraphs aren't perfect at accounting for that (they use 3 or 5 year averages typically).  Severino certainly hasn't been *good* by any stretch of the imagination, but I think in that ballpark average is probably an ERA north of 4.50.  He's probably been roughly Colin Rea quality when you account for park and defense.

That said, unlike someone like Gallen or Alcantara who I really liked coming into the year, I wasn't high on Severino to start with.  So even if getting him out of Sacramende turns him back to normal, I don't love his normal.  And what I wrote above about park factors needs to color how you look at Urias.  Ultimately while I'd do this trade in a vacuum, I suspect there are other overlapping deals I'd rather pull the trigger on, like a Keller/Bednar deal.

[CubinNY]

Even though he seems like a Cub killer, I have no interest in Suarez. He's such a streaky hitter. If he goes into a cold streak to end the year,  he's not much better than Shaw. 

[harmony]

The third Wild Card berth is becoming a blight on the trade deadline—perhaps more with each passing year.

Is it a bad thing that mediocre teams are discouraged from tanking by becoming sellers at the trade deadline?

Does the expanded postseason format encourage clubs to build long-term during the offseason instead of depending on a two-month fix by poaching off struggling teams at the trade deadline?

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

Something to keep in mind with the A's broadly is their new park this year has been the second most hitter friendly in the league after Coors.  And park factors at places like Fangraphs aren't perfect at accounting for that (they use 3 or 5 year averages typically).  Severino certainly hasn't been *good* by any stretch of the imagination, but I think in that ballpark average is probably an ERA north of 4.50.  He's probably been roughly Colin Rea quality when you account for park and defense.

That said, unlike someone like Gallen or Alcantara who I really liked coming into the year, I wasn't high on Severino to start with.  So even if getting him out of Sacramende turns him back to normal, I don't love his normal.  And what I wrote above about park factors needs to color how you look at Urias.  Ultimately while I'd do this trade in a vacuum, I suspect there are other overlapping deals I'd rather pull the trigger on, like a Keller/Bednar deal.

If the Cubs are doing one stop shopping with anyone, I would love it to be the Twins. Either Jax or Ryan with Castro. Depending on how much the Cubs are willing to give up, Jax, Ryan and Castro. But I think that price would terrify some of this fan base. Wouldn’t mind a Lugo/Estevez/Garcia trade either, depending on cost. For a smaller price, India instead of Garcia. Or just the pitchers. 

Edited July 18, 2025 by Rcal10

[CubinNY]

21 minutes ago, harmony said:

The third Wild Card berth is becoming a blight on the trade deadline—perhaps more with each passing year.

Is it a bad thing that mediocre teams are discouraged from tanking by becoming sellers at the trade deadline?

Does the expanded postseason format encourage clubs to build long-term during the offseason instead of depending on a two-month fix by poaching off struggling teams at the trade deadline?

The law of unintended consequences at work. 

Baseball is such a different sport. I think the regular season should be at least as important as the postseason. It should matter more (my opinion, obviously). At first glance, I dislike the idea of wildcards in baseball because it rewards mediocrity, but at the same time, if it also results in teams building for multi-year success, that's a positive outcome. 

I don't think it addresses the fundamental problem of "small market" teams losing marquee players to free agency, though. Only revenue sharing will achieve that, and I don't see people with the Ricketts mindset willing to share the wealth. 

[Rob]

22 minutes ago, harmony said:

The third Wild Card berth is becoming a blight on the trade deadline—perhaps more with each passing year.

Is it a bad thing that mediocre teams are discouraged from tanking by becoming sellers at the trade deadline?

Does the expanded postseason format encourage clubs to build long-term during the offseason instead of depending on a two-month fix by poaching off struggling teams at the trade deadline?

The expanded postseason makes the playoffs an even bigger crapshoot. Which means that the "smart" strategy is to shoot for 88 wins and a wild card spot while spending as little as possible.

Tanking can be approached in other fashions, such as the draft lottery MLB instituted. That's why the White Sox picked 10th this year despite a historically awful 2024 season.

[PVG]

It seems that everyone is trying to accomplish two things - get the best results for this year and not mortgage the future.
I think we would  be helpful if we could put some clearer definitions and some numbers on what we're hoping to achieve.

1) Best results for this year - that means raise the probability of winning the WS.
Per Fangraphs various models the Cubs have between roughly a 5% and 13% of winning the WS.
Call it 9%.  (The Dodgers are at about 20%).

2) Mortgage the future - what's the future? - call it the next 5 years.
So this would mean we'd like to keep the probability of winning the WS as 
high as possible over the next 5 years.  
So we'd need to come up with an estimate of those probabilities.
I don't know how to do that.

But let me put up some numbers just to get an idea of what this would like.
Again suppose the Cubs now have a 9% chance of winning this year
And suppose without making any moves this year they could maintain that same probability
in the succeeding 4 years.  
Then their probability of winning the WS at least once in the next 5 years
would be  1 - 0.91^5 =~ 37.6%   
So that's 5 years of having a very good team - and still very likely no WS victory.

How about we go all in this year - completely empty out the minor leagues.
How much could we raise the probability for this year - to 25%?, 30%?
and what would that do to the future - with the rentals gone and the minor leauges decimated? - 
drop it to  3% per year?  (about half the teams now have <3% of winning the WS this year)
So what would the probabilities look like? let's be generous  1 - .70*0.97^4 = ~ 38.0%

Just about the same.  with a much greater chance for this year.
I don't really know how to fill in the numbers or how far of a horizon
we should look at - 
but does this approach seem reasonable in trying to make decisions?