Question of the week: grade the trade deadline

[Brock Beauchamp]

So, where did the Cubs land in your eyes?

[mul21]

I give them a D.  You have a glaring need to eat innings and add another playoff starter and you cheap out and say arms were too expensive?  Then in the offseason you're going to say Tucker is too expensive.  This is amateur hour and MLB should force the Ricketts to sell the team because they refuse to act like the big market behemoth they should be.  It's an absolute travesty. I'm less mad at Jed than ownership since he knows he has to keep Caissie around because Tom will cheap out and not give him the cash to sign an actual franchise player long term.

[Outshined_One]

I kinda wish there was an option to make the grade + or -.

On the one hand, the Cubs addressed depth across the board with rock solid additions.  I can't give them an F on that basis, since they needed a top bench bat with positional flexibility, help at back of the bullpen, and rotation depth, and they got the right guys for those areas.

On the other hand, the lack of a top end SP is a killer.  I get that prices were a bit out of control and a ton of guys were not traded, so I can't fail them for getting someone who wasn't traded, but it hurts.  That being said, there were a lot of high quality RPs who were available and traded, and I think the Cubs might have missed out in adding depth to their bullpen.

I went with C, but I'd go with C- if that were a choice.

[Jason Ross]

I'll give them a C-, but for the purposes of our discussion, I'll go with a C on the poll.

On one hand, the team is better than it was on Wednesday when they left Milwaukee. The bench took a big leap forward with Willi Castro, the bullpen is deeper with Rogers and Kittredge and Mike Soroka has good underlying data that the Cubs should be able to exploit. The Cubs didn't acquire any of those players for anything above an overpay, and that's all a nice outcome. The Brewers, as well, didn't really vastly improve their chances, so you can probably say the Cubs added move value.

But I cannot help but feel the same issue that has plagued the Cubs for the last two years has cropped up once again - they are one impact player short. They did not get the impact SP they needed, and they were unable to pivot and grab one of the impact relievers that would have helped create a BP of doom. I understand some of the prices were very high, but that's part of the job of Hoyer - to determine which high prices are acceptable, to know his system and to know when to pivot. 

As well, they have once again punted their MiLB culling down the road and are getting to a point when you're wondering what the plan is. They can't have five people start in the outfield, and they can't realistically put Alcantara and Caissie back in Iowa. What are they going to do with Long? And they can't think the price of controllable SP's is going down by much come this winter - they deemed them too expensive last winter as well. 

So all of that leads me to a C-. It's better than average, they're better today, but it's just an organization who consistently feels like they cannot bring themselves to make the killing blow by adding that one more piece. It's always too expensive; the contract is too rich, they want too many years, the other team wants one too many prospects. You can't be too afraid to add years, money and prospects in a trade, at some point you have to pick your poison, but the Cubs seem unable to decide which one of these as an organization they will do.

[Bertz]

There's an episode of Scrubs that always stuck with me.  Elizabeth Banks plays a star surgeon, I don't remember what kind exactly.  JD's got a patient that needs her type of surgery, but she refuses to take on the operation because the patient has a bunch of factors that make it risky.  Turns out Banks' character has a history of dodging these tough patients in order to keep her stats up and look better for fellowships, etc.

Anyway Jed made four good trades and but refused to engage with the most glaring hole on the roster for the second transaction period in a row.  I gave him a D.

[Rcal10]

Same as the previous 2 posts. C-. 
Oops, bertz beat me to it with a D. So not the same as the previous 2. But C-, none the less.

Edited August 1, 2025 by Rcal10

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Bertz said:

There's an episode of Scrubs that always stuck with me.  Elizabeth Banks plays a star surgeon, I don't remember what kind exactly.  JD's got a patient that needs her type of surgery, but she refuses to take on the operation because the patient has a bunch of factors that make it risky.  Turns out Banks' character has a history of dodging these tough patients in order to keep her stats up and look better for fellowships, etc.

Anyway Jed made four good trades and but refused to engage with the most glaring hole on the roster for the second transaction period in a row.  I gave him a D.

Man, between this Scrubs analogy and @matto1233's turn of phase about pizza delivery, I feel like my Jed Hoyer analogy game need's work.

[NorthsideAvenger]

Would I have like a SP better than Mike Soroka, sure, but their failure to get that pitcher will no affect my choice. The moves in a vacuum were solid and because of that, I gave them a B.

[KCCub]

Great analogy @Bertz. 

D grade from me overall. Castro is a great get/fit. The other three moves are all fine on their own. Didn't address our #1 need or shift to higher quality RP when the SP deals fell through. 

 

Going into the deadline, IMO, I think there was a an argument for us being the second best team in the NL in terms of playoff caliber roster (Phillies were more complete, and I don't know how to judge these current Dodgers). After the deadline, I personally put us behind the Phillies, SDP, and Mets. Dodgers probably, but again tough to gauge their injury riddled roster as of now and who they will have available come the playoffs. But the point is, our main playoff competition got much better and addressed major holes in their rosters, while we tuned up the margins. 

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I am proud of the F I gave. SP has been a glaring hole for months, and very little has been done to address it except trade for a guy who may no longer have a fastball and hope a couple of injured guys come back and continue their mediocrity.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

C.   Can't be higher than that when your biggest hole goes (likely) unresolved, but the options to fill that hole that actually did move were very scarce and went at uncomfortable prices.  Would've preferred some slightly different reliever options, but those are basically RNG for a 2 month period so I'm willing to see how they perform(plus the possibility Soroka goes to the pen and continues being dime-store Duran).  Wanted the resources spent on pitching first and foremost, but Castro is the best position player fit and they got a strong deal on him so his raising of the floor on that side of the ball buoys the grade.

[Hot Sauce]

19 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

C.   Can't be higher than that when your biggest hole goes (likely) unresolved, but the options to fill that hole that actually did move were very scarce and went at uncomfortable prices.  Would've preferred some slightly different reliever options, but those are basically RNG for a 2 month period so I'm willing to see how they perform(plus the possibility Soroka goes to the pen and continues being dime-store Duran).  Wanted the resources spent on pitching first and foremost, but Castro is the best position player fit and they got a strong deal on him so his raising of the floor on that side of the ball buoys the grade.

Very good, very fair assessment. I echo these thoughts and also gave them a C.

[Rob]

C for me.

If Matt Shaw is truly coming around (and I think he is) then the price on Eugenio Suarez was too high to get such marginal improvement. In such an environment, Willi Castro probably was the best position player available to fit our needs. So getting him is a big plus. I'd have also liked a Harrison Bader or Ramon Laureano as a lefty-mashing bat for the OF. But that's going to be a very marginal thing over the remaining games.

Our big need though was pitching. I like Soroka more than most, seeing him as a bad #3 or good #4 in a rotation. But our playoff rotation now looks like Boyd - Imanaga - Taillon - Horton. That's probably a fine if unspectacular playoff rotation. But two of those guys have been dealing with injuries this season, and the other two are already way past their recent workloads. If any two of them drop and we're seeing Soroka/Assad/Wicks as our #3/4 in a playoff series, we are in real rough shape.

With respect to the bullpen, I anticipate our biggest add will be Ben Brown. I like his stuff playing up in short relief. If the rotation somehow stays healthy and Soroka spends time in the bullpen, he could make a difference as well. I'm just not counting on that. I don't think much of Kittredge or Rogers, but they should hopefully limit the blowups and give Counsel a little bit more ability to rest guys like Keller, Thielbar, Brasier, etc... So I'm okay with the pen. Would have liked to add Bednar or somebody, but honestly Ben Brown could be that guy.

[CubinNY]

Are we grading on the Cubs, we just want to compete curve (TM)?

No, then D- 

They addressed the bench, they got a pen arm, and they got another starter. They didn't get what they needed, but they probably marginally improved. Just getting rid of Pressley was addition by subtraction. 

 

[cubfansince77]

7 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I'll give them a C-, but for the purposes of our discussion, I'll go with a C on the poll.

On one hand, the team is better than it was on Wednesday when they left Milwaukee. The bench took a big leap forward with Willi Castro, the bullpen is deeper with Rogers and Kittredge and Mike Soroka has good underlying data that the Cubs should be able to exploit. The Cubs didn't acquire any of those players for anything above an overpay, and that's all a nice outcome. The Brewers, as well, didn't really vastly improve their chances, so you can probably say the Cubs added move value.

But I cannot help but feel the same issue that has plagued the Cubs for the last two years has cropped up once again - they are one impact player short. They did not get the impact SP they needed, and they were unable to pivot and grab one of the impact relievers that would have helped create a BP of doom. I understand some of the prices were very high, but that's part of the job of Hoyer - to determine which high prices are acceptable, to know his system and to know when to pivot. 

As well, they have once again punted their MiLB culling down the road and are getting to a point when you're wondering what the plan is. They can't have five people start in the outfield, and they can't realistically put Alcantara and Caissie back in Iowa. What are they going to do with Long? And they can't think the price of controllable SP's is going down by much come this winter - they deemed them too expensive last winter as well. 

So all of that leads me to a C-. It's better than average, they're better today, but it's just an organization who consistently feels like they cannot bring themselves to make the killing blow by adding that one more piece. It's always too expensive; the contract is too rich, they want too many years, the other team wants one too many prospects. You can't be too afraid to add years, money and prospects in a trade, at some point you have to pick your poison, but the Cubs seem unable to decide which one of these as an organization they will do.

Good post as usual JR and it's the same thing Ken Rosenthal said yesterday about Breslow and the Red Sox, but he also lumped in Hoyer and the Cubs with his criticism as well. That said, knowing how Hoyer covets prospects, he has to feel a little queasy that he traded Cam Smith away. Tucker is great but most of us kind of know deep down that Tuck isn't re-signing here. So that will obviously mean that Jed lost Paredes and Smith for one year of Tucker. Worth it IF they can win the pennant or WS this season. But if not? No bueno.

[Randall Simon]

D for me. While they filled 4 of their 5 needs, the one they didn't fill was the one they most desperately needed to.  Had they ONLY landed the SP, I'd have given a B grade.

We're better today than before the deadline, but our main competition for the pennant improved more than we did. I feel our odds of reaching the WS have shrunk. 

None of us would've been "happy" with Morton, Bradley, Houser, or Verlander, but at least one of those guys could've provided competent depth, and safeguard against a Boyd injury or Horton innings cap. Preventing another bull pen game.

The most disappointing thing about yesterday is that the FO has once again proven that they are not committed to winning.  The price is always too high.  I do not have confidence that TR and JH are the duo that brings us back to the WS. 

Edited August 1, 2025 by Randall Simon

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

I gave them a C. If guys like Gore, Ryan, Cabrera, and Alcantara had ended up on other teams, I would have gone F.