Random trade speculation

[Funky-daddy]

I get Suzuki is our second best hitter but is it THAT crazy to trade him if you get a great pitcher back? By most measures we’re a top-3 offense in baseball. Does the value add of improving our rotation outweigh the loss to our offense? It’s pure speculation and curiosity here but how much worse do we get platooning conforto/shaw ?

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, Funky-daddy said:

I get Suzuki is our second best hitter but is it THAT crazy to trade him if you get a great pitcher back? By most measures we’re a top-3 offense in baseball. Does the value add of improving our rotation outweigh the loss to our offense? It’s pure speculation and curiosity here but how much worse do we get platooning conforto/shaw ?

So I'll say this off the top: it's not insane on the surface. Suzuki has a 116 wRC+ against RHP and a 161 wRC+ against LHP. Conforto (109 wRC+ against RHP) and Shaw (133 wRC+ against LHP) aren't far off the pace. While Conforto is a bad defender, Shaw is a good one. In aggregate, you could squint and see a Seiya Suzuki replacement. 

Here's the issue:
1. Suzuki doesn't need to be platooned. It creates a situation where you really don't want Shaw (80 wRC+ against RHP) and Conforto (who has six PA's against LHP because they want to shield him so much) facing certain pitchers late in the game. Suzuki doesn't pose such an issue. 
2. The landing strip for that kind of a trade is near impossible to land. You'd need to first find a team who has so much MLB pitching that they say "you know what, I don't need it all" in an era when everyone is getting hurt looking at a baseball. Next, you need a team who, conceivably, is willing to trade controlled pitching for non-controlled hitting. Which seems weird; pitching is more valued at the deadline
3. The opposing team has to want expiring contracts and value them. So you're only trading from a winning team to another winning team. Teams who are winning rarely want to weaken their own position. Especially if they are bringing back a player set to hit Free Agency.
4. Why does it have to be controlled pitching? Because as of right now, Suzuki is in line for a QO and draft pick compensation. The CBA looming may change that, but we can only live in the world we know, and as of now, we know that's coming. They cannot offer a QO to a player they trade for in August, and this is not nothing. The pitcher would have to essentially far outweigh Suzuki to the Cubs if he was expiring, but then the other team is facing the same loss of a QO pick looming. 

It's a near impossible set of situations that would have to come to fruition for the Cubs to come out ahead. It's possible, I guess, but it's so wildly unlikely to benefit the Cubs that it's probably not going to happen.

[Geographyhater8888]

Trading Suzuki is silly. That’s why prospects exist, so you don’t weaken one area of your team to strengthen another when you’re contending for a World Series. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Outshined_One]

I feel like the Seiya trade talk is just something that's being thrown at the wall for engagement.  @Jason Ross covered it in detail, but the short of things is, why would a team in the playoff race trade the Cubs a cost-controlled SP good enough to slot into the Cubs' rotation for Seiya?  I don't get why a team would trade a high quality performing SP when that team would likely need said SP for the stretch run and the playoffs.

I mean, sure, if the Mariners offered up Kirby for Seiya, the Cubs would probably take it, but I just don't get why the Mariners would even do that in the first place.

[731.4life]

7 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

I feel like the Seiya trade talk is just something that's being thrown at the wall for engagement.  @Jason Ross covered it in detail, but the short of things is, why would a team in the playoff race trade the Cubs a cost-controlled SP good enough to slot into the Cubs' rotation for Seiya?  I don't get why a team would trade a high quality performing SP when that team would likely need said SP for the stretch run and the playoffs.

I mean, sure, if the Mariners offered up Kirby for Seiya, the Cubs would probably take it, but I just don't get why the Mariners would even do that in the first place.

Have you watched the Seattle Mariners? Or just looking at analytics/numbers to prove a point. The Mariners aren't good.

[Outshined_One]

5 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

Have you watched the Seattle Mariners? Or just looking at analytics/numbers to prove a point. The Mariners aren't good.

They're 1.5 games out of the third WC spot and 2.5 games out in the AL West.

The AL suuuuuuuucks this year.

[731.4life]

Just now, Outshined_One said:

They're 1.5 games out of the third WC spot.

The AL suuuuuuuucks this year.

I don't know if that proves anything. The team can't hit and has lost their power. Can't drive the baseball in the gaps either, and can't score runs. So, finding a way to trade a big league pitcher of theirs for a big league offensive bat in the outfield, does make sense to me.

[Outshined_One]

2 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

I don't know if that proves anything. The team can't hit and has lost their power. Can't drive the baseball in the gaps either, and can't score runs. So, finding a way to trade a big league pitcher of theirs for a big league offensive bat in the outfield, does make sense to me.

I took your post more to say they wouldn't be trading for anyone because they sucked.

Their offense is bad, don't get me wrong, but they need guys like Kirby if they want to make a run at it. It would be like ripping out part of a levy to use it to plug a leak elsewhere.

Plus, their farm system is stacked with some really good pieces who can be used in a trade for a bat elsewhere.

[Jason Ross]

20 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

I don't know if that proves anything. The team can't hit and has lost their power. Can't drive the baseball in the gaps either, and can't score runs. So, finding a way to trade a big league pitcher of theirs for a big league offensive bat in the outfield, does make sense to me.

Again, in theory it does. But let's think of this from the Mariners' stand point: which pitcher are they trading for a hitter? There have been two names discussed that the Seattle Mariners may consider trading: Emmerson Hancock and Luis Castillo. 

Luis Castillo has limited trade value. As of now he has 2026 and 2027, but 2027 vests at 180 IP. Let's assume he'd have to be good to get to 180 IP as he's not on pace this year, so again, it's 1.5 years at $21.6 AAV. With 2 months remaining, he's at about $7m (give or take) this year, and then next, so he's going to cost a team, napkin math, $28m (or so) between today and the end of next year. For our practice, let's assume the CBA doesn't change (I'm not going to tweak this for every possible which way). I'll use $9m as a quick fWAR/$, but know this is also very quick napkin math; teams don't operate so pedantic.

$28m in value, at $9m per win assumes 3 wins remaining. Castillo has been worth .6 wins this year, ZiPs projects (generously) .5 remaining. So next year, just to get the contract from under water, he'd have to be worth 2.5 fWAR; it doesn't look promising. Castillo for Suzuki would have to include prospects - or some other value just to get to equal. It doesn't make sense from a Cub perspective. The don't really need the prospects, and the Mariners probably aren't trading that heavily from their MLB roster to get this done.

Sure, again, theoretically, you could take those prospects, then flip them elsewhere. But if it's so easy then the Mariners should probably just do that to begin with. And if it isn't that easy, there is a ticking time clock (the deadline) looming. Getting that kind of flip job done in a short turn around feels...video-gamey. 

Okay, how about Hancock? Hancock has been worth 1.6 fWAR so far and is on pace (using ZiPs) at .5 fWAR more. Let's call him a ~2 win player and he's controlled four more years. That's 8 wins, or $72m in value. Even subtracting out contract, he's way over valued for the 1.1 fWAR (so, $10m or so) in value Suzuki offers without considering his contract. You're probably needing to find $30m+ in prospects to get there. Thats one of Rojas/Hartshorn, one of Ayers/Kepley/Conrad/Wiggins and something else pretty fun. At $10m for Suzuki it's easier just to throw a prospect at the Mariners to equal the value.

In the end, the math doesn't math very well. You'd need the Cubs to well overvalue 1.5 years of Luis Castillo who has been really bad this year or the Seattle Mariners, a team who is not likely one Seiya Suzuki away from being a World Series favorite, to way overvalue Suzuki in a Hancock trade to get there. Is this an impossible situation? No. But you're basically hoping one team fucks up majorly and that doesn't seem very likely.

[731.4life]

10 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Again, in theory it does. But let's think of this from the Mariners' stand point: which pitcher are they trading for a hitter? There have been two names discussed that the Seattle Mariners may consider trading: Emmerson Hancock and Luis Castillo. 

Luis Castillo has limited trade value. As of now he has 2026 and 2027, but 2027 vests at 180 IP. Let's assume he'd have to be good to get to 180 IP as he's not on pace this year, so again, it's 1.5 years at $21.6 AAV. With 2 months remaining, he's at about $7m (give or take) this year, and then next, so he's going to cost a team, napkin math, $28m (or so) between today and the end of next year. For our practice, let's assume the CBA doesn't change (I'm not going to tweak this for every possible which way). I'll use $9m as a quick fWAR/$, but know this is also very quick napkin math; teams don't operate so pedantic.

$28m in value, at $9m per win assumes 3 wins remaining. Castillo has been worth .6 wins this year, ZiPs projects (generously) .5 remaining. So next year, just to get the contract from under water, he'd have to be worth 2.5 fWAR; it doesn't look promising. Castillo for Suzuki would have to include prospects - or some other value just to get to equal. It doesn't make sense from a Cub perspective. The don't really need the prospects, and the Mariners probably aren't trading that heavily from their MLB roster to get this done.

Okay, how about Hancock? Hancock has been worth 1.6 fWAR so far and is on pace (using ZiPs) at .5 fWAR more. Let's call him a ~2 win player and he's controlled four more years. That's 8 wins, or $72m in value. Even subtracting out contract, he's way over valued for the 1.1 fWAR (so, $10m or so) in value Suzuki offers without considering his contract. You're probably needing to find $30m+ in prospects to get there. Thats one of Rojas/Hartshorn, one of Ayers/Kepley/Conrad/Wiggins and something else pretty fun. At $10m for Suzuki it's easier just to throw a prospect at the Mariners to equal the value.

In the end, the math doesn't math very well. You'd need the Cubs to well overvalue 1.5 years of Luis Castillo or the Seattle Mariners, a team who is not likely one Seiya Suzuki away from being a World Series favorite, to way overvalue Suzuki in a Hancock trade to get there. Is this an impossible situation? No. But you're basically hoping one team fucks up majorly and that doesn't seem very likely.

I don't think anyone mentioned Castillo for Suzuki. It was Kirby for Suzuki. 

 

[Jason Ross]

13 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

I don't think anyone mentioned Castillo for Suzuki. It was Kirby for Suzuki. 

 

No one has connected George Kirby to the Cubs or in actual trade rumors. Will Sammon and Ken Rosenthanal, the other day, spoke of two pitchers the Mariners would look to trade: Luis Castillo and Emmerson Hancock. Here is that blurb:

Quote

If the Seattle Mariners trade a starting pitcher, the logical assumption is that it would be veteran right-hander Luis Castillo.

Maybe not.

In their search for a right-handed hitter, the Mariners are telling teams they also are open to moving righty Emerson Hancock, according to people briefed on their discussions.

Here is the only mention of the name George Kirby in the article:

Quote

Hancock, who opened the season in the rotation as a replacement for injured righty Bryce Miller, is not as established as righties Logan Gilbert, George Kirby and Bryan Woo, all of whom the Mariners are unlikely to discuss, sources said. Miller, pitching better than he has at any point in his career and under club control for three additional seasons, falls into the same nearly untouchable category.

But, okay, let's pretend for a moment the Mariners are cool with George Kirby. Let's run the same math. 

George Kirby has 2 years of control after this season remaining. He's on pace for 1 win left (ZiPs) which puts him on a 3 win pace, and has averaged 3.4 wins previously - so let's use that. It's fair to assume he would be worth 8 wins over the next 2 years which puts us in a tough spot. Teams value wins, stacking wins like this, more than a regular win. $9m is low and not a good number, but let's use it anyways. Thats $72m in value. We can assume he'll make a good penny in arbitration; let's call it $10m next year (an increase of around 40%) and somewhere between $15-18m after in his last year. So, subtract out $28m or so from the $72m in surplus. 

The prospect capital to get from Suzuki at $10m in value (without considering his contract) to George Kirby would be astronomical. Kirby is worth every bit on the field based on ZiPS as Suzuki is. And it's safe to assume that just $40-$50m in added value isn't enough to get them to budge in that they don't seem likely to discuss him. 

It's once again, incredibly unlikely. The amount of teams you could discuss this type of deal with is super small. And then the math just doesn't add up value wise. If Suzuki was 27 and controlled three years you might have something. But that Seiya turns 32 before the end of the year and is a FA? The Mariners can find a hitter far cheaper than this kind of a deal. And the Cubs an find a SP without dealing Suzuki.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

Lastly, the reason they can't bring him back for three years is that he isn't signing a three year deal. Someone is giving him more. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

I would agree with you about him signing for longer than 3 years if he was an American born player. But he isn’t and we don’t know how long he wants to stay in the country. He may want to go back sooner. So maybe he does take a 3 year deal. We should never speak as if we know what is in the mind of any players. If he likes it in Chicago, feels 3 more years is enough time to stay in the country and the Cubs give him a fair deal he could stay. He could also agree to the QO and take one year at a time. Again, we don’t know.

I do completely agree with you that I wouldn’t want to do more than 3 years on a deal with the Cubs. 

 

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

I'm going to be very clear: I did not speak as if I was in his mind. I'm not sure if you're implying that, but if you are, please don't. 

Actually. Jason, you absolutely said “he isn’t signing for 3 years”. See above. That sentence sure does appear as if you are speaking as if you were in his mind. Please try not doing that. That is the only issue I had with your response. I agree with everything else you said. He will be offered more years.  But we are not in the players minds so we don’t know what they really want. 

[PeanutPunch33]

Gotta admit, it's hilarious that the Tigers blew a 7 run lead in Skubal's final game with that team, especially after he threw a gem.  

Although it won't be so funny when the Dodgers acquire him.  

[Jason Ross]

35 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

 

 

Actually. Jason, you absolutely said “he isn’t signing for 3 years”. See above. That sentence sure does appear as if you are speaking as if you were in his mind. Please try not doing that. That is the only issue I had with your response. I agree with everything else you said. He will be offered more years.  But we are not in the players minds so we don’t know what they really want. 

I said he wasn't signing that because someone is giving him more. It feels like you read the first half of that quote and then ignored the second. Had I said "Seiya Suzuki is not signing a three year deal because he would feel he's worth more" your assessment would be entirely correct. That's me getting in his head. The reason I provided for why he won't sign a three year contract was due, entirely, to other teams. AKA, the market. That the market would offer him more. That has nothing to do with Seiya Suzuki or his thinking. That has everything to do with how other teams operate in the market. 

The only thing that would change that is Suzuki's thinking. He's offered nothing to suggest in any direction how long he plans on staying here. So using the market is all that matters. Market history is that players of his age and quality sign for more than three years. And exactly why I said what I did; that he wouldn't sign a three year deal with Chicago because someone would out bid the Cubs at that many years. 

This is no different than me saying that Tarik Skubal won't sign a three year deal because someone will offer him more. That's not me climbing in Skubal's head; it's reading the market.

[Post Count Padder]

1 minute ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

Gotta admit, it's hilarious that the Tigers blew a 7 run lead in Skubal's final game with that team, especially after he threw a gem.  

Although it won't be so funny when the Dodgers acquire him.  

It's insane because the Dodgers could offer 3 of their top 10, not have to include De Paula and it would probably still top any other team's offer. Or I could see them adding Emmet Sheehan to the package too. Something like Sheehan/Sirota/Tibbs and I don't know if any other team is willing to meet that.

[Geographyhater8888]

Tigers are underachieving bums. Thanks for all but guaranteeing that Skubal is either a Dodger or Brewer in the next few days. horsefeathers losers.

[CubinNY]

12 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

Gotta admit, it's hilarious that the Tigers blew a 7 run lead in Skubal's final game with that team, especially after he threw a gem.  

Although it won't be so funny when the Dodgers acquire him.  

 I wouldn't be surprised if it's the Dodgers or the Braves. 

[Jason Ross]

14 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

 I wouldn't be surprised if it's the Dodgers or the Braves. 

The Braves have been my guess. They have means (pitching prospects) and motive (great offense). AA has history with deadline deals. 

LAD is more of a threat based on name. Their match is tenuous and requires them to sell from the MLB team. The oldest team in MLB and from their pitching depth. Maybe they do, but I think it's iffy. 

Milwaukee feels like they keep their best prospects. I think they're more likely to reunite with Freddy than Skubal. But maybe it's wishful thinking on my end. 

[JunkyardWalrus]

45 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

Gotta admit, it's hilarious that the Tigers blew a 7 run lead in Skubal's final game with that team, especially after he threw a gem.  

Although it won't be so funny when the Dodgers acquire him.  

I kinda hope they do? At least it would deplete some of their farm before they sign him in the off-season.

[KCCub]

22 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

LAD is more of a threat based on name. Their match is tenuous and requires them to sell from the MLB team. The oldest team in MLB and from their pitching depth. Maybe they do, but I think it's iffy. 

I think LAD will be more involved in the pitching market now with Ohtani's injury situation. 

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, KCCub said:

I think LAD will be more involved in the pitching market now with Ohtani's injury situation. 

I don’t think the Dodgers get him this year. They have plenty of pitching, even without Skubal. I think they wait and sign him next year while keeping all their minor league talent. 

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

I said he wasn't signing that because someone is giving him more. It feels like you read the first half of that quote and then ignored the second. Had I said "Seiya Suzuki is not signing a three year deal because he would feel he's worth more" your assessment would be entirely correct. That's me getting in his head. The reason I provided for why he won't sign a three year contract was due, entirely, to other teams. AKA, the market. That the market would offer him more. That has nothing to do with Seiya Suzuki or his thinking. That has everything to do with how other teams operate in the market. 

The only thing that would change that is Suzuki's thinking. He's offered nothing to suggest in any direction how long he plans on staying here. So using the market is all that matters. Market history is that players of his age and quality sign for more than three years. And exactly why I said what I did; that he wouldn't sign a three year deal with Chicago because someone would out bid the Cubs at that many years. 

This is no different than me saying that Tarik Skubal won't sign a three year deal because someone will offer him more. That's not me climbing in Skubal's head; it's reading the market.

I read the entire post. To me it came across as if you were speaking as if you knew Seiya’s mind. But whatever🤷 Just a misunderstanding. Instead of arguing semantics, let’s just both agree the Cubs shouldn’t sign Seiya if it is for more than 3 years. Maybe if he has to go 4 the deal hinges on him making certain goals his last year which makes the next year guaranteed. I might be ok with that. 

[PeanutPunch33]

1 hour ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

I kinda hope they do? At least it would deplete some of their farm before they sign him in the off-season.

I'll be some combination of livid and depressed if they win 3x in a row.  Not saying they wouldn't deserve it... it's just bad for the sport, IMO.  Would love to see a new team win it all this year.  

[Rcal10]

Does something like Ayers, Wiggins and Alcantara for the Detmers and Adell work?  If not, would adding Triantos move the needle? I think I would do that. 

[chibears55]

6 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Does something like Ayers, Wiggins and Alcantara for the Detmers and Adell work?  If not, would adding Triantos move the needle? I think I would do that. 

Why do people want Detmers so much, not just here but on X too, or is he like a last option type if they can't get anyone better