Transmogrified Tiger

Welcome!

The latter, Fangraphs' tracker does a good job of illustrating.

Herz is like the ideal example of a pitcher to trade at the deadline. Rule 5 eligible, doesn't have premium velocity, can't consistently throw strikes or go deep in games, but enough stuff/bat-missing to have an interested suitor. Happy to see him used this way. Made I had more hope for, but it's a long term play given his middling 2023, and the Low/High A infields are gonna get crowded quickly with Shaw, Rivera, Hernandez, and Rojas. Plus Ed Howard is functionally the same profile if he can get right and isn't imminently Rule 5 eligible. Ironically I'm a little more ambivalent about Candelario as a target. I think he does lots of things well, continuing a trend where the front office values well-rounded players over specialists. He makes the lineup more immune from being one injury away from failure like it has been most of the year. But he's also a guy who ZiPS doesn't see as a 110+ wRC+ the rest of the year so I'm not certain you couldn't recreate Candelario's ROS with existing pieces used right. Now you don't have to run that risk and that's worth what you gave up, but as someone who wanted 2024 prioritized before 2023 I now have to hope this a precursor to extending a 30 y/o with inconsistent track record in order to get that benefit.

Necessary caveats that no team will see two players exactly alike, but if you were to pattern match that deal I think it would look something like Madrigal, Velazquez/Canario, and Luis Vazquez. Clearly took a hit on upside to get several players with MLB readiness.

No, I don't want them to trade Bellinger either way, and the benefits of keeping Stroman(competing for a playoff spot, signal of competitiveness to FAs, more opportunity to extend Stroman) is valuable enough that I'm not going to lament not getting another player in the Kilian/Canario/Brown mold.

I wanted Harper as much as anyone, but 'a big nothing' in this case was signing Darvish and Kimbrel in that offseason instead, and exceeding the luxury tax line by over 35 million.

If Cleveland is trading away useful pitchers and taking on hit-first prospects, I wonder what the cost would look like to get Josh Naylor.

I'll own up that I've definitely pushed the option years thing not realizing he has a 4th(even reading AZ Phil's footnotes I'm still not sure what is different that gives Alcantara one, but I have no reason to doubt him). That said, the context for worrying about Alcantara's options is not that he'd be rushed to MLB at too young an age, but that he would either be forced to MLB before he was ready for that step(significantly hurting his odds of reaching his ceiling) or that once he is MLB ready he would have limited opportunity to stake out a role before options math worked against him(also hurting the odds of him reaching his ceiling. If he does have that 4th year it helps a fair amount, but at the same time there are not a ton of players who get rostered prior to reaching AA. He can spend 2024 at AA and 2025 at AAA, that wouldn't be aggressive and I think for a player like Alcantara with his physical profile(super tall, long levers) having him spend that time at each level will help ensure he's not out over his skis when promoted. But that still leaves a single season in 2026 for him to not only show he's on the path to stardom(which is what would justify hesitancy about trading him), but to do so quickly enough that he justifies a roster spot indefinitely. It's not quite Rule 5 pick levels of squishing development, but it's far from ideal, and it only takes a little bit of sand in the gears(a 2 month injury, a longer adjustment period at AAA as they exploit those long levers, etc) for it to become dicey.

I'm fairly sympathetic to your line of thinking from the Bednar thread, but you're either not realizing that you need to try harder on this one or you had so much fun with the Bednar thread you're dangling this as bait like a message board Colin Robinson.

But the genesis of this whole point is that Alcantara's option clock forces him to be rushed in a way that prevents him from reaching the potential that makes folks so hesitant to include him in a trade. Saying 'he's on the 40 man so if he's hitting well in AA he'll probably get called up' isn't a refutation of that point, if anything it's just explaining *how* that potential-sapping rushing to the big leagues would happen.

I'm not eager to get rid of Davis, but I do think you have to give up/write him off mentally as a possible contributor, and reasons 1 and 3 in this article are part of why. Even before the injury parade, there were questions if he could be a MLB-quality CF, and those are likely compounded by what he'll look like in the future after those injuries. A probable corner OF(even a plus one) doesn't have much immediate opportunity on the roster, and as a RH hitter he doesn't have a clean platoon fit either. But really the 3rd reason is the main thing. What's happened to Davis is incredibly unlucky, but having multiple severe back/spine injuries that have baffled medical professionals is a strong negative signal that future injuries are coming, that Davis will not ever be physically at the standard needed to be at the level he was at his prospect peak, or both. Add in that he hadn't proven he was up to the level at AAA before the injuries further compounds things. You don't have to outright him or trade him for whatever you can get, and development is rarely linear so there's a potential future where Davis can be useful. But as a rule prospects fail, and the probable outcome at this point is that Davis physically will not be capable of proving if he had the skill to break through to begin with

Welcome!

Maybe, there's no shortage of teams that would be interested in him. But at the same time, Soto has lost ~40% of his value since he was traded last, and the Padres preferred return is going to index towards MLB readiness compared to the Nationals trading him away.

I didn't watch yesterday's game, but Amaya has 10 HBP in 94 PA so I wouldn't take him getting hit as suspicious in and of itself.

If this is at all in the realm of possibility I think you have to jump on the opportunity. Soto is rare in quality and consistency, he has finished outside the Top 10 in wRC+ once, when he finished 1 point off of 10th. Soto is just what the team needs, a lineup anchor with elite production that doesn't displace any of the other good players they've already assembled Soto is so young that he makes for a good and particularly Jed-friendly extension candidate. Hoyer was never going to give 10 years to a 30 year old like Bogaerts(and thanks to AJ Preller doing so Soto is now potentially available), but a very long term deal to a 25 year old who has the most bankable production in the sport is a different story. Soto has is close enough to FA that the cost is attainable and not too damaging. The Nationals trade for Soto wasn't really possible due to the Cubs not having that prospect firepower, but a team that still wants to compete and is only trading 1.5 years of Soto? Something on the order of Morel, Wicks, and Hernandez may be in the ballpark, which is well worth it if you can extend Soto and hedged by the QO benefit if not.

The Mariners hitting lags their pitching and they don't have any real alternative to Suarez, if they did they'd probably try them out at 2B or DH. Tough to see how trading away Suarez is their preferred outcome unless they're really and truly giving up on 2023.

I just can't bring myself to get worked up over a guy in complex ball as being a particularly audacious piece to give up in trade, it is so so far from realization of whatever potential you see. Last August everyone gnashed their teeth after Cam Collier slipped in the draft and made the ACL look like batting practice for a couple weeks at age 17, and now he's got an 87 wRC+ in full season ball. Maybe this guy is the next Tatis! More likely he's Reggie Preciado.

Several ACL debuts for 2023 draftees Bateman 1/3, BB, SB Shaw 1/3, 2B, BB, K, SB, CS Rivera 2/4, 3B Bowser 1/3, BB, SB, 2 K Kalmer 1/3, 2B, BB, K

Rodriguez has an opt out after this year like Stroman.

Is the point of a team to maximize their chance at a future championship if the current year's chances aren't all that high? I'm all for efficiency and optimizing the value of a roster, and I don't think there's a singular right answer to that question, but I think it's worth asking 'why bother' if it's not possible to enjoy the potential playoff team's play without it needing to be a precursor to a future uber-team.

Either the thread split/merge is glitching or I'm losing my mind and somehow quoting in the wrong thread. Both seem possible at this point. I have a hard time buying that it's not possible to find 2024 contributors. Heck they technically did it last year with McKinstry, and other teams did without trading players that were appreciably different than who the Cubs could potentially be trading. The Angels turned Syndegaard's expiring deal into Moniak, the Yankees and Cardinals both got next year contributors from the Bader/Montgomery deal, the Pirates and Cardinals both got next year contributors in the Quintana deal, and that's not including teams that got 2023 contributions from yet-to-debut prospects. Does the Cubs 2024 success hinge on finding a poor-performing major leaguer and making them into a 5 win player? No, but at the same time uncommon success requires uncommon things happening, and a deadline where very few are giving up on 2023 and no one is giving up on 2024 means that type of player is the most likely potential 2024 contributor to be available. As for Bellinger, we can agree to disagree about that cause I don't want to belabor a previous point. It's not about the value of the pick itself, it's the flexibility it affords you in FA without kneecapping your total draft resources. Stroman I'm more open minded about trading, but I also see some benefit in signaling the intent to be competitive by keeping him(plus he's technically under contract in 2024), so I'm not going to see it as pass/fail that he needs to go.

I alluded to this above(I think that's still this thread?), but I think 'thread the needle implies' that they're trying to get the best of both worlds and make both 2023 and 2024 better. While that's far from impossible I'm not saying that's the goal. The Cubs have very low playoff odds for 2023, they have been very low for a while and even if they aren't a bad team they shouldn't make moves with 2023 in mind. What I keep reiterating about this deadline is that 1) they should be trying to prioritize 2024 with any moves because of the roster window recent FA + extensions have created 2) trading away players for what you can get is not really the best way to prioritize 2024 in this situation. This especially applies to Bellinger(and Gomes since you mention him), and there are arguments you can apply it to Stroman as well depending on the details(how high the still-bad playoff odds are, what Stroman's market is).

This season has been such a disaster for the Cardinals(and I guess disappointing enough for the Cubs) that even with them only coming here once this season I just bought tickets for Sunday the other day for $13, direct from the team and including fees.

I didn't say anything about improving the team in 2023. To make that point more clearly: The Cubs are about what we thought, a .500 team give or take depending on variance While the current winning streak is fun, they still have long odds to make the playoffs Even with those long odds, there's still value in not stripping the team for parts simply because a 2022 Phillies run is unlikely If you are making trades though, 2023 improvements are secondary/optional compared to 2024 improvements, which are required

Is it? Getting a specific return for Stroman might be, but the plan here presupposes that you're fine with that not happening too. Yes, buying low and having it pay off is an uncommon outcome by definition, but it also definitonally comes at a low cost. If you trade for, I dunno, Bobby Dalbec, and he isn't any good that's not the preferred endgame, but the opportunity cost is lower and that risk exists for every type of acquisition(see: Heyward, Taillon, Quintana, Justin Wilson, etc)