We ran through the biggest headlining moves of Wednesday’s trade deadline (American League; National League). But what about the trades that didn’t take place?
1. Gun-Shy Big Spenders. They had explanations for their decisions not to add significant talent on deadline day, but it was still stunning to see the Dodgers and Yankees — and, to a lesser extent, the Red Sox — bypass big moves. Both clubs are excellent just the way they are. Each rightly respects the value of young talent and perennial contention. But still … it has been quite some time since either took down a World Series title. And there could well be opportunities to second guess if the roster is lacking that one key piece at a big moment.
2. Mets Withhold Wheeler. On the other side of the coin, this was by far the boldest non-sale. The Mets put a lofty price tag on their rental starter and stuck to it. It’s a bold gambit that could easily backfire. True, there’s value in pressing to contend. And Wheeler could still be issued a qualifying offer. (He might be a nice value on even an expensive one-year deal; if he declines, the Mets would likely recoup draft compensation.) But if the Mets can’t continue their recent run, and/or health issues preclude a QO to Wheeler, this could be regrettable.
3. High-Powered Relievers Stay In Lower-Leverage Situations. Felipe Vazquez. Edwin Diaz. Kirby Yates. Mychal Givens. Raisel Iglesias. Alex Colome. Amir Garrett. Joe Jimenez. Jose Leclerc. There was some firepower and late-inning experience out there! And contenders that could’ve used it, with affordable team control helping to justify any addition. We never expected all of those arms to change hands, but I sure thought at least one or two would.
4. Boyd Not Bought. The Tigers just don’t seem that close to contending, if we’re being honest. Sure, the tide can start to turn more quickly than one might anticipate. But there are a load of questions facing the organization over the next few seasons. Dealing Matt Boyd, whose eye-popping peripherals and three seasons of control are highly appealing, seemed to offer a ready-made path to boosting the Tigers farm in a way that other recent deadline pieces haven’t. It would’ve been foolish to settle for a meager return, and it may be that the offers just weren’t there, but it’s surprising that nothing came together on the breakout lefty.
5. Cardinals Keep Bird In Hand. With an increasingly glaring postseason drought, the game’s model smaller-market team seemed to be positioned to chase glory at the deadline. It was frustrating for the team, and no doubt also for quite a few fans, to come away empty when there were some clear areas to improve on the roster. A division crown is still plenty possible, but the odds would be better with another quality starter and another bullpen or bench piece in the fold.
6. All Smoak, No Fire. As rental pieces go, defensively limited hitters aren’t that exciting. But man, Justin Smoak is a pretty good one. He’s a switch-hitter on an affordable deal. His power is down a bit, but it’s still there and he has been walking like a man possessed. Plus, he’s a Statcast darling, with a lofty .389 xwOBA.
7. That Dog Don’t Hunt[er]. Ditto Hunter Pence, who came back from the dead and turned in an All-Star first half. He’s swinging a hot stick. He’s cheap. And he’s pure fire in the clubhouse. It feels like we’re all missing out not having Pence giving color to high-leverage moments by stalking the dugout steps and entering the batter’s box in a big moment or two.
8. Frazier Not Freed: Quite apart from the Yanks’ generally quiet outcome was the fact that the club didn’t manage to find a deal involving Clint Frazier. He could still have an impact in New York, at least once rosters expand, but the club has passed over multiple chances to bring him onto the roster and wouldn’t seem to be increasing his trade value by keeping him stashed at Triple-A. It seemed to make an awful lot of sense for Frazier to be cashed in somehow on or before July 31. But he’s still in New York (err, Scranton).
9. Middle Relievers Marooned. So … why exactly didn’t these guys end up on the move? Prices were said to be frustratingly lofty by several contending GMs. Many ended up bypassing the top of the pure rental market, going to second or third-tier rental pieces (e.g., the Nationals) or nabbing controllable, somewhat under-the-radar arms (Nick Anderson, Joe Biagini, Jake Faria, Adam Kolarek). But if those players moved, why not guys like Francisco Liriano, Craig Stammen, Greg Holland, David Hernandez, Jared Hughes, and Cory Gearrin?
10. Buy/Sell Blurred. While the aggregate amount of talent moved ended up being rather typical, the deadline lacked much in the way of decisive action as between contending and rebuilding, buying versus selling. The Mets and Reds made stunning trades that improved their still-middling chances this year, but mostly did so with an eye to the future. Both clubs went on to perform a bit of corresponding payroll/roster management that partially offset their lone acquisitions. The Astros went big, while the Cubs and Braves made substantial adds (particularly when you include their mid-season free-agent expenditures). But on the whole, tepidity abounded on the buy side. It was even more remarkable to see so few teams go for broke in a selling direction. The Giants did some reshuffling but clearly chose to walk a line. Many teams that found themselves in potential selling position after hoping to contend decided against deep cuts, such as the Angels, Rangers, Pirates, Rockies, and Padres. (San Diego’s one major swap did bring in a prospect, but didn’t meaningfully impact the team’s expected contention timeline.) The Marlins and Blue Jays sent out a few pieces, but the Tigers, Royals, and even the Orioles held their most interesting MLB assets (Boyd, Whit Merrifield, Givens, Trey Mancini, etc.). The White Sox did nothing of note. Even the Diamondbacks, who surprised with their Zack Greinke deal, also acted to bring in multiple MLB pieces to stay afloat this year and prepare for a reasonably competitive 2020. What does it all mean? Who can say? Perhaps it’s just how things shook out this time around. Or it may be that the rise of prospect clutching and cheap extensions will usher in a new era of mainly “homegrown” teams, for better or worse.
It’s because in the new MLB prospects are insanely overvalued. Prospects are incredibly valuable, but a lot of people including GMs overvalue them to an extreme fault and forget that they are just that, prospects. They aren’t guaranteed to be anything.
Yes, but they are significantly more valuable than a lot of big leaguers due to their extended cost control. Having years of pre-arb and arb seasons coming up massively offsets the failure rate.
I hear what you’re saying, certainly. I’d like to see prospects moved more freely. But with so many big market teams up against luxury tax limits, that next wave of cost controlled talent is what stops the bottom falling out of the team in future years. Fans care about winning today, but front offices have a responsibility to take care of tomorrow too.
The next CBA should be interesting. As contracts for superstars get more and more expensive, more teams will reach the luxury tax thresholds which ultimately stifle lower tier contracts as well as restrict trades. How many $20m – $30m+ contractsvcan Boston for example have? Add in the $10m – $20m deals and remember some will disappoint and others will land on the IL. No way to replace those. The Sox felt they were best this year by not investing in the pen. At the deadline, they had no flexibility to adjust. The Yankees, Dodgers and Cubs will soon fond themselves in a similar situation.
Cam – well explained.
MLB just needs to pay younger players what they deserve and that will change this overvalue stashing of prospects that has created a much less exciting product.
Unless you change the system to yearly contracts with incentives, how can this be done? Teams invest in minor league talent and most never make it. Young players are getting signing bonuses and what needs to change is the international and U.S. drafts should be combined with one set of rules. Some rules have changed but not enough.
It was a sellers market, and to be honest, the sellers blew it.
Other than the Greinke deal, which trades suggest sellers had the upper hand? Mostly there were trades of proven players for “suspects.” That’s pretty much the way deadline trades have occurred in the past. I guess many teams didn’t get offers that blew them away so they kept their proven players.
Because a lot of them had insane asking prices.
Didn’t the buyers blow it for thinking it was a buyers’ market?
Seriously: what’s the problem with Clint Frazier???
Nothing is wrong with Frazier… but every team has a guy like him at AAA. Maybe not with his lousy attitude. Think of Billy McKinney… or Jim Adduci…
he is a whole lot better hitter than either
Power but no position and even the Yankees don’t like him much. They needed a RHH power, they dealt for Encarnacion rather than just use Frazier.
Well, they also needed a first baseman. I think keeping with tauchman is sending a message to him. Hopefully it is a message received and he can contribute to the team. It feels as if Frazier pissed of someone high up and they are letting him know.
If Mets give wheeler a qo he won’t decline it. That’s more than he will get for one year in the open market
Yankees gave Happ 17M per last offseason. You can bet anything they would offer that to Wheeler in a heartbeat.
If he finishes well and in good health, he’ll probably get at least a ~15 mil AAV over 3 or more years.
There’s an error in #5. It refers to the Cardinals as “the game’s model smaller-market team” when the organization has one of the higher payrolls in the MLB.
There’s an error in your thinking. Just because they spend above average, doesn’t mean they’re in a larger market. The Cardinals are 19th in market. MLB size. That’s smaller than nearly 2/3 of the league. That they spend more then each of the Mets, Angels & Whitesox doesn’t mean St. Louis is a bigger market than NYC, LA & Chicago.
While true that the St. Louis market is smaller, having the 7th highest revenues in the sport make it much easier for the Cardinals to be a model smaller market team.
I believe the true model small revenue team has to be the Rays. Since 2008 they have the 5th most wins in MLB, have been to the playoffs 4 times, won 2 division crowns playing in the toughest division and are on pace for what would be their 7th 90+ win season. They revolutionized the way the game is played and have also completed a rebuild without the complete tanking, teardown method that other orginazations, including many high revenue clubs, have gone through.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Tampa Bay had a better ball park. The Marlins were an interesting example of a lower revenue team that actually won the world series, but the fire sales seemed to ultimately cripple their fan base. I wonder if fans in a more baseball friendly area would be comfortable with a small market team that has to aggressively tank a couple times per decade to remain competitive.
There’s an error in your English comprehension, unless you can explain how a “model” small market can tell other “larger” markets how to make their population suddenly care more about baseball, allowing them to raise their payrolls.
They have the high payroll because they have been a model smaller-market organization. I’m not just talking about roster-building, but running a successful franchise over a long period of time.
The Redsox were never going anywhere so why make crazy moves.
I swear to God… I already gave you a deadline to give me some headline. Now you give me some non-headline? You should be disgusted with yourself.
Ken Giles missing from listed of Closers and Teams didn’t want to give up Top Prospects.
I think he’s dealing with some elbow problems
No posturing, no trash talking…I cannot believe the Dodgers didn’t trade for a closer/elite RP (even if it wasn’t Vazquez). Beyond nonsensical, it’s borderline malfeasance.
Ignoring your obvious and glaring weakness when the cost to fix it wouldn’t even ding you, let alone dent you?
It’s like taking your car to a mechanic and saying….
Customer: The last two times I went to hit my brakes, my car wouldn’t stop.
Mechanic: Well, they might work the next time.
Customer: I have lots of money, why don’t we just fix them?
Mechanic: Well, who knows, you might need that money for something more important later on. Just go ahead and give it another shot and see what happens, OK?
With that line of reasoning you would have traded Bellinger, Buehler, Seager, and Urias long ago and the Dodgers would still be looking for a World Series title and wondering why they traded its top prospects
And it’s been 31 years since a title and next year it will be 32. When you have a chance to win it you should go for it just like the Astros have done. Possibly losing three World Series in a row would have me pissed if I were a Dodgers fan.
My main objection to this line of thinking is that it assumes an elite RP will guarantee a WSC. It won’t, and would not have last year or the prior year.
In 2018, in none of the four losses by the LAD, did LAD have the lead. Heck, the RS barely even used their elite closer to win.
Anyone who uses the word “guarantee” in a baseball context I have to assume just doesn’t get it in some really fundamental way. We spend so much of our time talking about statistics in the game. So why is it not understood that baseball is a game of probabilities? You can never “guarantee” anything in a probability environment, but you sure can improve your chances of success. That’s what these choices are all about. Dodgers management chose not to improve the team’s biggest and most obvious area of weakness. This choice reduces their probability of succeeding.
A Dodger fan for 60 + years. This team is fun. One of the best LA teams! We might be in seven WW’s in a row. Ya win some Ya lose some. Dang man we are winning!! Be happy brah.
No.
AFTER you have built up such an MLB roster and prospect base (which LA has done) that you are loaded at both THEN you trade the superfluous prospects for elite pieces to finish off a championship puzzle.
They need two catchers of the future? They don’t have enough pitching?
I don’t get it.
That’s why I was shocked that the Dodgers didn’t add anybody. Their farm is still well stocked even after they’ve dipped into the farm trade deadline after trade deadline.
In your analogy, you think an RP is the brake. The last two times the brakes failed was because of Kershaw & Darvish.
It’s a bit like the RS. If the RS were playing .625 ball, an elite closer would make sense. But if the issue is the rotation, an elite closer doesn’t make that much difference.
So, your logic is “why bother shoring up our weaknesses because our strengths might fail us anyway”?
Doesn’t that depend on the cost? I’m a RS fan. I like the addition of Cashner because it addressed a material weakness, at a low cost. But I would not have traded what’s left of the farm for a closer.
Without knowing what the offers were, we cannot discuss it intelligently. Vazquez is really good, but not even close to the value of LAD’s top two prospects.
In addition, the BP is not much of a weakness. They are #3 in the NL in ERA.
FWIW, I have no problem with making additions, but you cannot make bad trades that will affect your long-term competitiveness.
The Dodgers bullpen is #8 in ERA overall and #3 in the NL. Not that ERA is the best way to rate a bullpen. In Save Percentage they are #19.
Yes, trades can affect longterm competitiveness. If perpetually coming in second is the goal, then those trades are “bad.” Winning it all requires making hard choices. Always has, always will.
you guys, the alliteration here is simply horrendous. please. i know you are trying to write things to engage the common folk but please just give up the gimmicks while trying to write fact based articles. the amount of times i laughed at these dumb and ridiculously named subtitles 1-10 is over twelve.
Try decaf, Bro…
Sally sells sea shells by the sea shore
Everything we write is exceedingly stodgy. Was just having a bit of goofy fun with one element of this particular post.
I was actually thinking while reading that you do a perfect job at it, Jeff. Just enough fun without being corny.
middle relievers marooned. frazier not freed boyd not bought. all three are classic examples of someone who has never spent time in a thesaurus
my fav. buy/sell blurred. that headline is not only another bad example of writing a headline. blurred. really? if any team would have traded for stroman or bauer, any of those teams would have become better teams, instantly. why does it matter that a team no longer in the playoff hunt becomes a better team at the deadline and now people are upset they went out and became a better team. oh noes. they arent winning. they cant get stroman, they cant get bauer, uhh why not? it happened and you can bet one of the two gets traded come end of the year thus proving both team made great trades
I actually like what the Tigers did with Boyd. I think in a vacuum, they they overvalued him, but that’s also in big part because he has value to Detroit. They have some legit young arms in the farm and he is a guy they could extend nearer to free angency to be a rotational anchor and clubhouse guy when the young pitchers start to get called up and they have little payroll obligations beyond Cabrera. Of course, if they were offered what the Astros gave up for Greinke then I’m sure they Avila would have pulled the trigger and with his age, salary, and team control I don’t think it was unwise to settle for much less than what the DBacks got and he should’ve commanded that tag. I’m not saying he’s as good as Zack, but if he were traded to the Astros instead, he would’ve slid into the same spot and then the Astros would have had the financial flexibilty to lock down Cole and having that 1-2-3 of Verly, Cole And Boyd for the next 3 years almost seems like a better rotation going forward than what they’ll have if Cole leaves in FA.
Maybe it’s true Detroit’s asking price was too high for other teams, but he has more value to the Tigers than to settle for anything less than they’re asking price. And there is still the winter meetings in the off-season where his trade value will be sky high.
Even a few years ago trading a star or even just a solid player for a top prospect wasn’t even a question. You saw trades like shields for tatis and cespedes for top prospect Michael fulmer, and there are so many more too. Nowadays if a team like the Mets got a rental player like cespedes was, it would be for their like #5 ranked prospect at the lowest most likely
Calling Smoak a defensively limited hitter is disingenuous
I just mean that he’s limited to playing first base.
that may be but the last couple years he has been one of the best 1B in th AL and an excellent defender. It is a misleading choice of words as somebody has to play there and he is among the best in the AL.
Many pundits and writers say that the new trade deadline is killing the sport, yet the deadline proved to be a record-breaker, with more deadline day deals than any other deadline. The parity argument apparently is a double-edged sword. On one side, there was an anti-dumping/rebuild sentiment on the air waves and blogs during the first half of the year, reversed by a blurred buy/sell conundrum because so many teams remained in contention for a wild card. All this is seemingly positive to fans.