Analyzing The Price Of The Trade Deadline: Did the Cubs Lose Too Much?

[Jason Ross]

Image courtesy of USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

The annual MLB Trade deadline is one of two sides. On one hand, it's exhilaration; it's adding new talent, new faces, and hope. It's about here, it's about now. For the Cubs, it's celebrating the arrival of veteran pitchers like Kevin Gausman and Clay Holmes to bring stability to their rotation or for the excitement of a heavy Ryan Zeferjahn fastball striking out someone with the tying run on second late in a ball game. But these new additions didn't just appear out of thin air; they were paid for in prospect capital and the potential of the future; it's the other side of the coin. There's loss. You have to give to get. Everything has a cost, and nothing is free, especially in baseball. The goal is to buy more than you sell, to get more value than you give, and teams have to evaluate that in real time, and the Cubs had to give up a few names that are quite recognizable. 

Of the losses, the two names that will stick out the most are Moises Ballesteros and Jefferson Rojas. Both are names that have appeared on top-100 lists, regardless of the publication, and both were lights at the end of the tunnel when the Cubs weren't battling the Brewers for NL Central supremacy and were mired in mediocrity. If you're worried today that the Cubs just sold the future of the farm for today's crops I'm here to tell you to step a little off from the ledge a step or two. These are good prospects, yes, and they have real MLB futures, but to the Cubs, these were expendable pieces. Players the team saw as flawed enough to move and players the Cubs thought, ultimately, were better served being swapped for the here and the now. 

A few months ago, it would have been wild to think that the Cubs traded their Opening Day designated hitter, Moises Ballesteros. Big Mo got off to a really good start, hitting .387/.435/.481 through his first 69 plate appearances, which was good for a 210 wRC+. He even got a handful of starts behind the dish, making you believe there was a real future at the position. But things hit a snag, and not only did Ballesteros struggle to the tune of a 14 wRC+ over his next 106 PAs, but he was also sent back to Iowa to work on his swing and approach. Pitchers were getting him to flail at high heat, and he needed some added seasoning. 

Here's the harsh reality, however: the team told you today what they think of "Mo Baller"; he's a DH, and only a DH. Between their two catchers, Ballesteros and the up-and-coming Owen Ayers, it was the 19th-round pick Ayers who the team reportedly held firm on, not Mo. And as a DH, he's really just not that special. He's a high-contact, aggressive hitter who struggled against LHP both at the MLB level (76 wRC+) and at the Triple-A level (.260 wOBA last year). From this perspective, he becomes far less of a star and far more mundane. The barrier to entry at DH is just so high compared, and if he's not going to be a catcher, the value proposition is just different.

vs LHP / RHP

Overview

Split	PA	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	wOBA	xwOBA	K%	BB%	Barrel%	HardHit%	Whiff%
vs LHP	148	0.234	0.291	0.285	0.575	0.260	0.252	16.2%	4.7%	0.9%	31.3%	23.5%
vs RHP	357	0.352	0.420	0.557	0.977	0.415	0.382	12.0%	11.2%	7.8%	47.8%	18.7%

As surprising as it was to see Ballesteros moved, Jefferson Rojas may have been the most shocking to see dealt. Not because he was dealt (with how the Cubs' organization is set up, he felt expendable) but in how he was used: for rental starting pitcher Clay Holmes and rental outfield Tyrone Taylor of the Mets. Rojas has been a fixture on top-100 lists over the last few years, currently sitting 63rd on MLB.com Pipeline and #99 on Baseball America. As recently as our mid-year rankings, we had Rojas as our top prospect in the entire system. This makes the price seem steep, quite steep. Internally, however, the Cubs view their young shortstop quite differently.

Defensively, Rojas has had questions about his ability to stick at shortstop across the board. Baseball America said about this part of his game that "his footwork and hands leave something to be desired and he’s prone to poorly timed dives on extra-effort plays". This would give you pause about his long-term ability at the most premium of infield positions, and the Cubs share this fear. They don't think he's a shortstop at the next level at all. 

While the defense has always been a question, the hope is that the bat would play at lesser positions such as second, third, or left field. At the MLB level, the team has long-term solutions across the infield, meaning that Rojas would likely have to adapt to a corner OF spot. On the surface, a 21-year-old who's hit 15 home runs and has posted a 114 wRC+ in Double-A would seem to have the possibility to end up with a bat good enough, but this is once again where industry rankings and internal ones collide head-on as the Cubs are concerned with his ability to hit at positions that require a more demanding bat. Specifically, the fear revolves around his swing and whether or not it is adaptable enough to handle the high bar those positions require. 

When you look at both Ballesteros and Rojas in this light, the cost makes more sense. If you traded a 23-year-old, left-handed hitting catcher and a 21-year-old 20 home-run shortstop, today really hurts. If instead, you traded a platoon-DH and a tweener with the bat and the glove, it hurts way less. With how the Cubs priced them, it's easy to come to the conclusion that they feel they gave up the latter, and not the former. 

Beyond these two, most of the other names traded probably won't sway the system's overall ranking heavily. Mason McGwire, the nephew of Mark, whom the team also traded to the Angels in the Zeferjahn trade, is a strike-throwing pitcher who has mid-rotation upside and lots of injury risk. Jonathon Long is a fringe-MLB bat who's stuck at first base. Brett Bateman and Ty Southisene both receive 20-grades in the power department and profile as bench-hitters with a lot of contact and glove, but likely no ability to start. These aren't prospects who offer zero upside, but they also are much more "run of the mill" than Ballesteros and Rojas. All have interesting aspects, but none change the calculus of the team or the system. 

Ultimately, we cannot know today whether the Cubs gave up too much, and we probably won't know for years.

But it's also probably important to look through the history of prospect-led trades made by Jed Hoyer to see what to expect, and when you do that, one thing becomes clear: Jed Hoyer hasn't been taken to the woodshed yet in any deal. While it's true the Cubs did give up Zyhir Hope (who headlined the Tarik Skubal deal), they also received Michael Busch in that deal, who has provided the Cubs 7.3 fWAR over 418 games. The Cubs traded first-round pick Cam Smith for Kyle Tucker: so far in 900 PAs, Smith has had an 87 wRC+. Christopher Morel, moved for Isaac Paredes, is currently in the Mets system, hitting for their Triple-A affiliate. Going further, it's hard to find many having success elsewhere, as former second-round pick Jackson Ferris (struggling in the Dodgers' system), Ryan Gallagher (struggling in the Twins' system), and Ronny Cruz (struggling in the Nationals' system) are having a hard time finding their footing in new organizations. We shouldn't expect the Cubs to bat 1.000 on prospects; when you trade enough of them, everyone gets burned, but to this point, they haven't had a notable "miss". 

A very easy thing to do on deadline day is to pull up your favorite publication and scour over their top-100 list and come to the conclusion that someone is an overpay or an underpay, but time and time again we are reminded that teams don't look at Baseball America or Pipeline when they make trades and have their own systems. Rojas may have been Jim Callis' 63rd-best prospect, but the Cubs didn't act like they thought he was the 63rd-best prospect. Time will tell if the Cubs were right on this front, but so far, Jed and the Cubs have been more right than the industry has been on their prospects. 

And with all of the doom-and-gloom of those leaving, it's probably important to remember who's left. The Cubs still have Josiah Hartshorn, Owen Ayers, Jaxon Wiggins, Cade Townshend, Kane Kepley, and Ethan Conrad. They have a brand new draft class about to start their own professional journey. And that doesn't count barely-graduated prospects like Pedro Ramirez, who have been making an impact with the Cubs already. They're not depleted. 

A good thing to remember is that prospects are assets to help the MLB side of things. You get a trophy for one thing in this sport, and it isn't having the most top-100 prospects on Pipeline. Prospects can affect your team by playing for it, or by being used as currency to buy known commodities. It's okay to be sad that they lost some of their perceived future, but also fair to believe in the team's internal ability to grade their own assets. 

 

View full article

[SB in SC]

I am happy that the guys I really did not want the Cubs to give up they did not.  I am going to be happy about that today and worry what they gave up another time.  This year's team is better and will be fun to watch for the rest of the season.

[JBears79]

Nice article, Jason. I loved this trade deadline and believe the Cubs got significantly better for this season while maintain a very solid farm system for the future. 

Losing Rojas hurts  as I thought he could be a headlining piece for a controllablr starter but clearly the industry doesnt view him the way prospect pundints do. I like what Keith Law wrote about that trade and his overall assessment of Rojas.

[macarthur31]

Alfonsin Rosario for Eli Morgan may end up one that Jed wished he could do over, but of course, that one stung more given Morgan was injured and hasn't seemed to be able to get back on track since that injury.  But, agreed - you can't hit on all of the moves, and Jed has appeared to win more than lose, and even when there are losses, they haven't been catastrophic.  (*knocks wood*)

[Jason Ross]

39 minutes ago, SB in SC said:

I am happy that the guys I really did not want the Cubs to give up they did not.  I am going to be happy about that today and worry what they gave up another time.  This year's team is better and will be fun to watch for the rest of the season.

Yeah, I think I agree with all of this. The Cubs kept the prospects I most wanted to keep and they got significantly better. Their SP is very much improved from "bad-bad-bad" to "pretty good". And while there's a decent chance someone the Cubs gave up makes us regret it, that is the lottery you play. Someone will eventually bite them, but big markets replace.

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, macarthur31 said:

Alfonsin Rosario for Eli Morgan may end up one that Jed wished he could do over, but of course, that one stung more given Morgan was injured and hasn't seemed to be able to get back on track since that injury.  But, agreed - you can't hit on all of the moves, and Jed has appeared to win more than lose, and even when there are losses, they haven't been catastrophic.  (*knocks wood*)

It may, but I had a hard time believing in anyone striking out 32% of the time in Double-A. The power is real but we've seen the trials and tribulations our rookies have gone through with the Cubs and none of them were striking out this much in Double-A. 

Truly, though, I hope Rosario does well. My father is a Cleveland fan and I'd like them to do well, so if that's the guy we lose, I can at least find some solace. 

[Arlen]

Seems the Cubs lost much when they signed Bregman with a no-trade, multi-year contract. Let's not blame them for trading prospects that have little place to go with the Cubs' major league team.

[JunkyardWalrus]

I'm trying to be happy that Jed finally did a Lil sumthin, but the clouds I see are it's less currency to fill the same holes in the off season, then spend next trade deadline 'looking for 'controllable pitching.' 

Part of my frustration is that these trades perpetuate the cycle to continue, viciously and endlessly. 

[Jason Ross]

15 minutes ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

I'm trying to be happy that Jed finally did a Lil sumthin, but the clouds I see are it's less currency to fill the same holes in the off season, then spend next trade deadline 'looking for 'controllable pitching.' 

Part of my frustration is that these trades perpetuate the cycle to continue, viciously and endlessly. 

Well, to be fair, the Cubs did get some shopping done. Right now, the Cubs have for the BP next year all of Maton, Palencia, Zeferjahn and Webb. So there's already a foundation for a strong back end of the BP. Braxton Garrett could be an option at the tail-end of a 2027 rotation. 

Now, that doesn't solve all of your shopping. You still need two or three SPs. But they did solve some shopping for the future. And I think a Clay Holmes extension could be a very real thing, but I'll keep that separate from anything deadline related as I always view extensions as a separate thing.

I don't think it's unfair to have wanted more control on the SP's...me too. But all-in-all they got some work done for 2027. Just probably less than a fully ideal deadline, too.

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

And I think a Clay Holmes extension could be a very real thing, but I'll keep that separate from anything deadline related as I always view extensions as a separate thing.

 

I agree with your entire post, but this interest me the most, especially coming directly from you. Why do you feel a Holmes extension is a very real possibility? I agree that is shouldn’t have anything to do with the trade, but what makes you think he has a real chance at staying without testing free agency? 

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree with your entire post, but this interest me the most, especially coming directly from you. Why do you feel a Holmes extension is a very real possibility? I agree that is shouldn’t have anything to do with the trade, but what makes you think he has a real chance at staying without testing free agency? 

I think Clay Holmes and the Cubs match up great here. There were rumors of a possible extension in New York, too. 

If you're the Cubs and you wanted to find a pitcher who will look like the best version of himself in front of this defense, you'd put Clay Holmes very high on that list. If you found a guy I think the Cubs like from a profile stand point, you'd put Clay Holmes pretty high on that list. And I think if you picked a guy who would probably talk extension in general, a 33-year old, recently converted reliver who's spent time on the 60-day IL headed into a possible lock out would be pretty high on the list of "guys you'd think would be okay cashing in now". 

Really, just connecting dots. Holmes could look at this as one-big-payday and it's all moot. But I think both sides would have motivation from a logic standpoint. Far more so than, say, Kevin Gausman.

[macarthur31]

6 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Well, to be fair, the Cubs did get some shopping done. Right now, the Cubs have for the BP next year all of Maton, Palencia, Zeferjahn and Webb. So there's already a foundation for a strong back end of the BP. Braxton Garrett could be an option at the tail-end of a 2027 rotation. 

Now, that doesn't solve all of your shopping. You still need two or three SPs. But they did solve some shopping for the future. And I think a Clay Holmes extension could be a very real thing, but I'll keep that separate from anything deadline related as I always view extensions as a separate thing.

I don't think it's unfair to have wanted more control on the SP's...me too. But all-in-all they got some work done for 2027. Just probably less than a fully ideal deadline, too.

Weren't 17 of the draft picks this past class used towards acquiring more pitching?  I'm intuiting that affirms that we have alignment with Zombro and Kantrovitz in the draft room.  We may not flood future draft classes with just pitching, but I'm hopeful that by '29/'30 we'll have waves of cost-controlled supinators pushing to be on the big squad.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, Jason - but perhaps not all of these pitchers pan out as starters; then you hone them to be useful relief pitchers.  You augment that with the proven pro scouting/reclamation work that has delivered Jacob Webb and Ryan Rolison this past year, Drew Pomeranz and Brad Keller the previous season, and so on.  

Of course it's easy to write out in a blog, but that seems like a viable path to get off the cost-controlled pitching treadmill within the next 3-4 seasons.

 

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, macarthur31 said:

Weren't 17 of the draft picks this past class used towards acquiring more pitching?  I'm intuiting that affirms that we have alignment with Zombro and Kantrovitz in the draft room.  We may not flood future draft classes with just pitching, but I'm hopeful that by '29/'30 we'll have waves of cost-controlled supinators pushing to be on the big squad.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, Jason - but perhaps not all of these pitchers pan out as starters; then you hone them to be useful relief pitchers.  You augment that with the proven pro scouting/reclamation work that has delivered Jacob Webb and Ryan Rolison this past year, Drew Pomeranz and Brad Keller the previous season, and so on.  

Of course it's easy to write out in a blog, but that seems like a viable path to get off the cost-controlled pitching treadmill within the next 3-4 seasons.

 

I think the Cubs have really turned the keys to the pitching kingdom over to Tyler Zombro. I think they had to. I think it will result in a bit of a different approach to who they pick, and how they generally value arms up and down. Zeferjahn feels like a symptom of that, too.