Jump to content
North Side Baseball

  • A Trade a Day: Does Trading Cody Bellinger Have to Signal Giving Up on 2023?

    Matt Trueblood

    By Matt Trueblood

    The most daunting question facing the Cubs for the next week is whether or not they should trade Cody Bellinger. That question is bigger and more complex than whether or not the team is in contention, for various reasons. Still, a deal that netted the team immediate help would be easier to justify and execute.

    Image courtesy of © David Banks-USA TODAY Sports

    Cubs Video

    On the surface, any trade of Cody Bellinger would seem to signal that the Cubs are letting go of the idea of winning anything in 2023. If they're serious about reaching the postseason, trading a player as productive and as obviously talented as Bellinger seems hilariously misguided. 

    No matter what, though, Bellinger is going to hit free agency when this season ends. That's why the team is even considering trading him. He's not going to sign an extension. The chance of that isn't 1 percent or 0.1 percent. It's not 0.001 percent. It's zero. He might re-sign with the Cubs, eventually, but only after testing the market and determining his full value.

    That doesn't mean that there's no value in keeping him now, from the perspective of wanting him around for the long run. Trading a player makes it less likely that they will be back the following year; the only thing that varies is the magnitude of that effect. In Bellinger's case, especially, holding onto him would confer an advantage on the Cubs, because they'd be able to issue him the qualifying offer, making signing him more expensive (however slightly) to everyone else than to them. 

    So, if the Cubs are going to trade Bellinger, it needs to be because they get more in exchange than the prospect value of the draft pick they'd get if they lost him via free agency. The assumption has been that it also needs to be because they're out of the fight for the playoffs, but is there a version of a Bellinger deal that would allow them to compete even after his departure?

    To answer that question, start with this information: Pete Crow-Armstrong is hitting .282/.361/.507 at Double-A Tennessee. Since the All-Star break, in an admittedly minuscule sample, he's hitting .367/.424/.767, with seven extra-base hits, three walks, and just four strikeouts in 33 plate appearances. I'm generally against rushing prospects at all, and there's little doubt that Crow-Armstrong has more to learn in the minors, but that's rather tempting.

    Say, then, that the Cubs found the right fit for Bellinger in Texas. With Corey Seager on the injured list, the AL West-leading Rangers are down a key left-handed bat, and they're regularly starting Travis Jankowski in left field. If Jed Hoyer and Carter Hawkins could get the Rangers to include Mitch Garver in the return for Bellinger (as a throw-in, with the Cubs getting a quality prospect, too), the Cubs would have dealt Bellinger and added a useful right-handed bat at the same time. That's a need for the current Cubs roster, and into the breach left by trading Bellinger, the team could then plug Crow-Armstrong.

    This would be a high-risk maneuver. Getting back a piece like Garver would dramatically decrease the prospect value the Cubs could get for Bellinger, and Crow-Armstrong might not hit, which would leave the team damaged in both the short and the long term. Given the team's stuck-in-the-middle status, though, this move might also maximize their upside. They could get (a little) better in the long run, and they'd give themselves a chance to be a more functional, productive roster in the short term. They'd be improving their defense, even over Bellinger's fine glove work in center field, and they'd have a lineup of similar overall quality, with one fewer dynamic power hitter but one more lefty masher and one more true speedster.

    Being caught in the new purgatory created by MLB's bloated postseason format is not an enviable position. One way or another, the Cubs face some dilemmas this week. A Bellinger trade that both bolsters the farm system and preserves the potential for the team to chase down one of those playoff spots over the final two months could be the best way to thread this narrow-eyed needle.

    Think you could write a story like this? North Side Baseball wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.

    MORE FROM NORTH SIDE BASEBALL
    — Latest Cubs coverage from our writers
    — Recent Cubs discussion in our forums
    — Follow NSBB via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a North Side Baseball Caretaker

     Share
     Share
    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

    Tryptamine

    The answer is yes. He's the only consistently good bat this year. After him, the only one putting up an .800+ OPS is Morel and he's extremely streaky. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Transmogrified Tiger

    The implicit assumption in trading Bellinger for Garver and a prospect is that it's likely you could trade him for a better player than Garver or a better prospect.  Or you could hang on to him if you're wanting to compete and take the pick benefits that follow afterwards.  I'd prefer all 3 to this particular option.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    CubinNY

    If they trade Bellinger I hope it is for a young MLB guy or a guy right on the cusp. Obviously, a high-end prospect. I'm not so sure those types of trades happen any longer. Hoarding prospects appears to be a market inefficiency. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Matt Trueblood
    17 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

    The implicit assumption in trading Bellinger for Garver and a prospect is that it's likely you could trade him for a better player than Garver or a better prospect.  Or you could hang on to him if you're wanting to compete and take the pick benefits that follow afterwards.  I'd prefer all 3 to this particular option.

    Well, probably not the first thing, though. No one who wants Bellinger is going to trade a productive full-time player for him. You trade for Garver (and this is obviously just one example) because that’s about as good/important a player as any contender is likely to give up for a guy who’s only around for a few months. Otherwise, they’re neutering their own move to improve. Then you take the rest of the value you’re in position to demand in the form of a prospect.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Outshined_One

    The thought of calling up PCA at this stage in his development makes me uneasy if the intention is to keep the Cubs in contention.  Maybe it's PTSD from how the Cubs handled Corey Patterson back in the day, but I get a bit leery when guys with contact-oriented approaches and noticeable strikeout rates get called up too early, particularly if they get called up in the middle of a playoff chase where the pressure can sometimes result in guys developing bad habits.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Transmogrified Tiger
    18 minutes ago, Matt Trueblood said:

    Well, probably not the first thing, though. No one who wants Bellinger is going to trade a productive full-time player for him. You trade for Garver (and this is obviously just one example) because that’s about as good/important a player as any contender is likely to give up for a guy who’s only around for a few months. Otherwise, they’re neutering their own move to improve. Then you take the rest of the value you’re in position to demand in the form of a prospect.

    Maybe 'better player' isn't the right phrase, but rather 'more valuable' or 'more attractive'.  Even if we assume a competitor isn't going to trade a player with greater current productivity with Garver, it still implies one might trade one with similar productivity and more team control, or who is younger than 32, or plays a position of more acute need.  For example, the Twins are currently running a Joey Gallo/Michael Taylor timeshare in CF, it wouldn't be a stretch to see them want to make a run and add Bellinger at the expense of say, Matt Wallner.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Matt Trueblood
    2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

    Maybe 'better player' isn't the right phrase, but rather 'more valuable' or 'more attractive'.  Even if we assume a competitor isn't going to trade a player with greater current productivity with Garver, it still implies one might trade one with similar productivity and more team control, or who is younger than 32, or plays a position of more acute need.  For example, the Twins are currently running a Joey Gallo/Michael Taylor timeshare in CF, it wouldn't be a stretch to see them want to make a run and add Bellinger at the expense of say, Matt Wallner.

    Sure, that’s an interesting alternative. Related to my proposal that they pursue Kirilloff for Bellinger, earlier this month. I don’t know that Wallner helps a lot for the balance of this season, because he can’t presently play first base, but it’s a good option. Where I draw a distinction is that if you get a Wallner (who comes with plenty of risk, short term and long term), that’s pretty much all you get. I’m still envisioning them getting a solid prospect in addition to Garver, in the version I described.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Tryptamine

    Tryptamine 377

    Posted (edited)

    Well if CBS is to be believed, there wont be much trade return since they don't even have him ranked in the top 10 players available at the trade deadline and behind such players as Jeimer Candelario, Paul Dejong, Jordan Hicks and Michael Lorenzon. 

     

    Edited by Tryptamine
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Backtobanks
    1 hour ago, Tryptamine said:

    The answer is yes. He's the only consistently good bat this year. After him, the only one putting up an .800+ OPS is Morel and he's extremely streaky. 

    I feel like trading Bellinger not only shows we're giving up this season, but also points to 2-3 more years of mediocrity while we hope for the future.  Whenever in the future that PCA is ready, put Bellinger at 1B.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    TomtheBombadil

    Tbf there probably won't be much trade return less based on a ranking and most around being an upcoming FA with periphs that are unlikely to inspire a contender to give up the goods

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...