Random trade speculation

[Stratos]

33 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Kelly likely won't fetch a QO from the Cubs, and the Cubs at least have Amaya/Ayers/Ballesteros if a deal goes through, so I can kinda see how it could happen?  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's not as pants-on-head-crazy as trading Seiya.

I'm feeling like we're seeing writers and prognosticators going down lists of guys due to be FAs in the offseason and randomly throwing names out as trade candidates.  When do we get the articles about the Cubs having interest in trading Happ and Boyd?

To be honest I don't really have much trust in most rumors since any of them could be fed by teams to media contacts to try to increase their own negotiation leverage.

[Tryptamine]

I know one thing, if they do trade Kelly, I'm going to get crazy hyped about Ayers because that means the FO is almost certainly extremely high on him.

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I was thinking a reliever.  e.g. Kelly+ for Garrett Whitlock

But yeah video game stuff is a good way to describe it.  Only really works IRL if AJ Preller's involved.

Speaking of Preller, it's fascinating to see how fans who are not Padres' fans view Preller vs those who are. I play baseball with a guy (dude is 55 years old, a lawyer from SD, and pitched last night 9 days after elective surgery in a very sensitive place - he's a machine) who's a Pads fan and man, he'd murder the guy right now. I wife's cousin has a husband who is also a Padres fan. He'd murder him. 

Outside of Pads land, so many revere his wildman status.

[PeanutPunch33]

3 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Why is it bad for the sport? They are the smartest organization with some of the best draft and development people in baseball. 

Lack of parity is bad for any sport… but yeah if it happens they deserve it.  They have a great organization.  

But I’m sure a lot of fans will start asking questions like “what’s the point of watching if the Dodgers are just going to win it every single year?” and that isn’t good for the sport, IMO 

[Jason Ross]

Just now, PeanutPunch33 said:

Lack of parity is bad for any sport… but yeah if it happens they deserve it.  They have a great organization.  

But I’m sure a lot of fans will start asking questions like “what’s the point of watching if the Dodgers are just going to win it every single year?” and that isn’t good for the sport, IMO 

Happens in every sport though. Warriors, Heat, the Bulls...didn't ruin the NBA. Patriots, Chiefs haven't ruined the NFL. 

I think the people who get pissy about one sport having a three-peat or whatever, routinely ignore that it's sports and there's almost always one dynasty in one of the major sports running things for a half decade to a decade.

[Bertz]

Yeah Dynasties are famously bad for sports viewership 

[PeanutPunch33]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Happens in every sport though. Warriors, Heat, the Bulls...didn't ruin the NBA. Patriots, Chiefs haven't ruined the NFL. 

I think the people who get pissy about one sport having a three-peat or whatever, routinely ignore that it's sports and there's almost always one dynasty in one of the major sports running things for a half decade to a decade.

The difference is that those teams won organically, with the exception of the Heat, and thanks to the efforts of the Spurs and Mavs I'm not sure I'd call them a dynasty.

The Warriors drafted Steph, Draymond, Klay.  The Bulls drafted MJ and traded for Pippen on draft day...  isn't that different than a team like the Dodgers just outspending everyone and buying championships? 

They bought Ohtani, they bought Yamamoto, they bought Roki, they bought Freeman, they bought Snell, they bought Scott, they bought Hernandez, they bought Tucker.  Outside of a few guys they just outspend everyone (which is their right and if the Cubs did that I'd be thrilled... but it's still bad for the sport).  Then they can make huge trades because a team that has that kind of spending power doesn't need to prospect hug the way other teams do... so now they have Betts and soon Skubal to the mix.  It's a well oiled machine that nobody else can come close to touching.  

Parity is a good thing for sports.  Fans should feel like their team has a pathway to a championship or at least a chance to be something other than cannon fodder for the Dodgers.  

Btw I'm not suggesting a salary cap for MLB... I'm more so at a loss why teams like the Yankees/Cubs/Mets/Red Sox don't operate in this way or can't get their organizations to a point where they can compete with the Dodgers.  

Edited 2 hours ago by PeanutPunch33

[Bertz]

Apologies for using the AI overview but parity sounds like it's better for the sport but it's rarely proven out in practice

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

The difference is that those teams won organically, with the exception of the Heat, and thanks to the efforts of the Spurs and Mavs I'm not sure I'd call them a dynasty.

The Warriors drafted Steph, Draymond, Klay.  The Bulls drafted MJ and traded for Pippen on draft day...  isn't that different than a team like the Dodgers just outspending everyone and buying championships? 

They bought Ohtani, they bought Yamamoto, they bought Roki, they bought Freeman, they bought Snell, they bought Scott, they bought Hernandez, they bought Tucker.  Outside of a few guys they just outspend everyone (which is their right and if the Cubs did that I'd be thrilled... but it's still bad for the sport).  Then they can make huge trades because a team that has that kind of spending power doesn't need to prospect hug the way other teams do... so now they have Betts and soon Skubal to the mix.  It's a well oiled machine that nobody else can come close to touching.  

Parity is a good thing for sports.  Fans should feel like their team has a pathway to a championship or at least a chance to be something other than cannon fodder for the Dodgers.  

Btw I'm not suggesting a salary cap for MLB... I'm more so at a loss why teams like the Yankees/Cubs/Mets/Red Sox don't operate in this way or can't get their organizations to a point where they can compete with the Dodgers.  

Why is drafting organic but using free agency not? Both are allowed under the rules. This always confuses me. Who cares how a team wins as long as the rules are followed?

It's like if you win at Monopoly only by landing on the spaces the dice roll and looking at players who also trade properties as bad. It's allowed under the rules. It's not bad for the game.

None of this is bad for the sport. Viewership doesn't decline. Having a big-bad-baddie is good in many ways, so even if the Dodgers are the big boogeymen right now, it gives many teams/fans/etc someone to hate and someone to tune into. They're the traditional wrestling heel to many.

[Geographyhater8888]

People will hate watch the Dodgers like they hate watched the Patriots, Heat, Chiefs, Astros etc. Dynasties are very profitable. 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[PeanutPunch33]

2 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Apologies for using the AI overview but parity sounds like it's better for the sport but it's rarely proven out in practice

 

Couldn't an alternative explanation for this be that these are just crappy tiny fanbases relative to others?  Texas is a football state, and Arizona is not exactly a sports haven.  

If the Cubs and Red Sox faced each other in the WS this year it would shatter every record for viewership.  I'm pretty sure the NBA Finals were up there in viewership between the Knicks and Spurs, the Knicks not having been there in ages.  

Same with football - you and I both know the ratings would be thru the roof if the Cowboys went to the SB.

[731.4life]

12 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Happens in every sport though. Warriors, Heat, the Bulls...didn't ruin the NBA. Patriots, Chiefs haven't ruined the NFL. 

I think the people who get pissy about one sport having a three-peat or whatever, routinely ignore that it's sports and there's almost always one dynasty in one of the major sports running things for a half decade to a decade.

I don't think I'll say that. Warriors were fine because they drafted those players and developed them. I'm fine with the Patriots and Chiefs because of the salary cap, and it's tougher to win in the NFL (scheduling as an example). NFL does a good job with helping the teams that are bad with no lottery in the draft, and an easy schedule.

The problem with the Dodgers is the deferred contracts. As I say that, the Cubs deferred money with Bregman, and most organizations do it, but not all. But I have a problem with Will Smith's contract being deferred + Yamamoto's contract being deferred = having enough money to sign Teoscar Hernandez (or another player) and that player gets a big hit in a playoff game.

I mean Blake Snell is getting paid $5.5 Million from age 42-53. You got a relief pitcher in Tanner Scott having a deferred contract. Edwin Diaz has a deferred contact that lasts 11 years.

I get it that's it is in the rules and all 30 organizations have the same chance, but they don't. No need to discuss that. I'm not saying I'm for a salary cap, but I'm heavily against deferred contracts.

[PeanutPunch33]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Why is drafting organic but using free agency not? Both are allowed under the rules. This always confuses me. Who cares how a team wins as long as the rules are followed?

It's like if you win at Monopoly only by landing on the spaces the dice roll and looking at players who also trade properties as bad. It's allowed under the rules. It's not bad for the game.

None of this is bad for the sport. Viewership doesn't decline. Having a big-bad-baddie is good in many ways, so even if the Dodgers are the big boogeymen right now, it gives many teams/fans/etc someone to hate and someone to tune into. They're the traditional wrestling heel to many.

If the definition of "good for the sport" is just the viewership ratings, then I can't disagree.  The Dodgers have a large enough fanbase that the "ratings" will always be great when they are good.

But if the league's goal is to grow the game outside of LA and NY then I just don't see it as a positive thing.  Fans in Cleveland, Detroit, Baltimore should feel like their team has a chance to win it all some day.  I would be stunned if a team like the Athletics win a championship in the next 50 years.  It shouldn't be like that.  

Edited 2 hours ago by PeanutPunch33

[Bertz]

Just now, PeanutPunch33 said:

 

Couldn't an alternative explanation for this be that these are just crappy tiny fanbases relative to others?  Texas is a football state, and Arizona is not exactly a sports haven.  

If the Cubs and Red Sox faced each other in the WS this year it would shatter every record for viewership.  I'm pretty sure the NBA Finals were up there in viewership between the Knicks and Spurs, the Knicks not having been there in ages.  

Same with football - you and I both know the ratings would be thru the roof if the Cowboys went to the SB.

Dallas is the #4 media market in the country and Phoenix is #12.

And even if these markets just underperform, the bottom line is it's not a bad thing to get the second largest media market in the country (and in this case, an entire extra country as well) juiced up for baseball even if there's some marginal falloff in like Tampa or Milwaukee.

[KCCub]

McClanahan left in the 4th with the trainer. Looked like he grabbed his lower back, but with his injury history you never know. They were already in on starting pitching, so this probably ramps up their pursuit even more. 

[731.4life]

46 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

If the definition of "good for the sport" is just the viewership ratings, then I can't disagree.  The Dodgers have a large enough fanbase that the "ratings" will always be great when they are good.

But if the league's goal is to grow the game outside of LA and NY then I just don't see it as a positive thing.  Fans in Cleveland, Detroit, Baltimore should feel like their team has a chance to win it all some day.  I would be stunned if a team like the Athletics win a championship in the next 50 years.  It shouldn't be like that.  

And if you're a team like St. Louis, it's probably better off going through a rebuild because of two things: (1): the Cardinals probably aren't going to win the WS or make it to the NLDS (realistic goal) anytime soon. (2) Let the Dodgers win their 2-3 World Series, and then go compete when those players are on the back half of their contracts, and when they're up in age. So, I do believe it was a good idea for St. Louis to go through a rebuild. They already got a good player in Wetherholt, and a lefty pitcher in Liam Doyle who they drafted last year, that can get it to the upper-90's.

But for a team like Colorado (probably the same guidelines as the Athletics), they can't. They don't have the light at the end of the tunnel. It's not just they have to rebuild, which is a hard thing to do in baseball. But they have to rebuild to their ballpark, which makes it a lot tougher. In addition to that, they have to deal with the Dodgers if/when they get back to playing competitive baseball and competing for a postseason spot. 

So I don't blame teams that are going through rebuilding phases right now because the chances of winning a World Series are slim due to how the Dodgers are operating their organization.

[Funky-daddy]

Is rojas, Wiggins , and Mo enough for Greene ?

[731.4life]

33 minutes ago, Funky-daddy said:

Is rojas, Wiggins , and Mo enough for Greene ?

I think it's more than enough to be honest.

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

I think it's more than enough to be honest.

Whatever any of us thinks is good enough usually isn’t. Most people here always expect our prospects to bring back more than what they really do bring back.

Edited 48 minutes ago by Rcal10

[731.4life]

39 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Whatever any of us thinks is good enough usually isn’t. Most people here always expect our prospects to bring back more than what they really do bring back.

True, and I get that. But for the Cubs perspective, he hasn't been the healthiest pitcher, and the Cubs can use that in the negotiations with Cincinnati.

Now, I will say, I do want Hunter Greene, but he's not a Skubal type guy that I'm willing to give up everything for. 

But Wiggins is starter and Mo will be an everyday player (whether if it's a C or DH is TBD). I don't know what the expectation is for Rojas, but I can see him being a consistent MLB player. I think those are 3 guys, with Horton being a one that draws the most interest.

With Greene's injury issues, I think it's still a slight overpay (my opinion) on this scenario, but I'll still consider doing it.