Less than three months after their first-round playoff defeat to the Marlins, the Cubs traded second place NL Cy Young finisher Yu Darvish to the Padres. This occurred after the Cubs won their division with a .567 winning percentage, which would have extrapolated to about 92 wins in a full season. I looked back through the last 20 years, and this has never been done: winning teams simply do not trade top-2 Cy Young finishers.
As you might expect, teams prefer not to trade top-2 Cy Young finishers at all. In the past 20 years, it’s only been done twice in the offseason: the Mets traded 38-year-old R.A. Dickey to the Blue Jays after the 2012 season, and the Diamondbacks dealt 41-year-old Randy Johnson to the Yankees after Arizona’s abysmal 2004 campaign. Let’s see if the more recent Dickey trade bears any similarities to what the Cubs did.
December 17, 2012: Mets trade Cy Young winner R.A. Dickey with Mike Nickeas and Josh Thole to the Blue Jays for Noah Syndergaard, Travis d’Arnaud, John Buck, and Wuilmer Becerra.
The 2012 Mets finished with a 74-88 record, good for fourth place in the NL East. Dickey, a knuckleballer, had quietly signed a minor league deal with the Mets after an uninspiring 2009 season out of the Twins’ bullpen. He flourished in the Mets’ rotation, finding another gear in 2012 en route to a 2.73 ERA over 233 2/3 innings. That effort resulted in 20 wins and the Cy Young award for the 38-year-old. At that point, the Mets had one year of control left on Dickey at an affordable $5MM.
Dickey hoped to stay longer. In May of his Cy Young-winning season, he told Mike Puma of the New York Post, “I like it here and I want to be here. I feel like the team is moving in the right direction, and I want to be a part of the solution. Now it’s up to them. If I’m in those plans, [addressing the contract] is one way to make it known.” As late as September of 2012, GM Sandy Alderson spoke of his intent to retain Dickey as well as David Wright long-term. They were the clear bright spots on the 2012 team. By November, however, a significant gap had emerged in contract talks between the Mets and Dickey, with the righty reportedly seeking a two-year extension worth $26MM.
Once the Mets succeeded in locking up Wright, the PR hit of potentially trading Dickey diminished, and the trade rumors began in earnest. In 2021, the Cubs’ nod to the negative PR of the departures of Darvish and Theo Epstein, among others, seems to be the nostalgia signing of Jake Arrieta. Not quite on par with the Wright extension, though the Cubs do have Anthony Rizzo, Javy Baez, and Kris Bryant as extension candidates given their impending free agency.
The Mets reportedly discussed Dickey with eight different teams at the Nashville Winter Meetings in 2012, ultimately reaching an agreement with the Blue Jays pending a contract extension for the pitcher. The Jays hammered out a two-year, $25MM deal – only $5MM more than the Mets had offered – and the deal was done. Alderson explained the Mets’ approach:
“One of the reasons the negotiations were prolonged is we began to see forces of supply and demand at work, frankly. On the one hand, we saw the value of starting pitching go up in terms of compensation. At the same time, we saw the supply start to go down in terms of availability. And so because we were proceeding on two tracks, at some point we had to wait and see what the value might be.”
Much like the 2021 Cubs after trading Darvish, Alderson talked about how the Mets weren’t giving up on the 2013 season, saying, “No. 1, we have made this trade, and we feel a number of the players that we’ve acquired — John Buck, certainly — and probably Travis d’Arnaud will make contributions in 2013. We can’t quantify those at the moment. But we do have expectations about that. In addition, there’s a lot of time between now and when we report to spring training. So we do expect to do some other things. We do expect to acquire some other players. We recognize we have holes to fill — that we may have created a hole in our rotation, but we will address those. We certainly are not punting on 2013.”
What were those “other things?” The rest of the Mets’ offseason consisted of signing Shaun Marcum for $4MM and adding some veterans on minor league deals. I didn’t expect much from the 2013 Mets, writing, “The Mets have been a sleeping giant under the Alderson regime, parting ways with their best veterans other than Wright, avoiding free agency, and allowing their attendance to slip to 17th in MLB. A decent rotation won’t be enough to overcome the team’s gaping holes in 2013, but perhaps the season will provide a sneak preview for the Mets’ return to relevance in the coming years.” The Mets wound up treading water in 2013, putting up the same 74 wins they had in 2012.
Then-Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopolous talked about the Mets’ leverage in the negotiations:
“Sandy clearly had the option to sign the player back. Everyone knew that. That was made aware. And the player wanted to stay. I think Sandy, when d’Arnaud was on the table, he was probably on the table for 10 days. And it really didn’t move anywhere. There was no traction. There was no dialogue. It just was not enough from his standpoint, as much as we valued Travis.” Anthopoulos would go on to tell reporters that Syndergaard was the last player the Mets insisted on acquiring.
Having recently added Jose Reyes, Josh Johnson, and Mark Buehrle in a blockbuster deal with the Marlins, Anthopoulos pulled the trigger on Dickey and gave up two major prospects in d’Arnaud and Syndergaard. How were the prospects perceived at the time?
In d’Arnaud, the Mets landed an MLB-ready prospect ranked 23rd in baseball in early 2013, according to Baseball America. It would be similar to acquiring Luis Patiño in the present day, who happens to be the main piece the Padres sent to the Rays for Blake Snell last December. Baseball America slapped a 60 grade on d’Arnaud at the time, generally assigned to “first-division regulars.” D’Arnaud was said to have the ability to become an All-Star catcher, “if he can stay healthy.”
Though d’Arnaud played well in 2014-15, accumulating 6.2 WAR over 175 games, his Mets career was mostly marked by a litany of injuries, and he was released in May 2019. D’Arnaud has had a resurgence since then, with a 120 wRC+ over 550 plate appearances. He took home his first Silver Slugger award with the 2020 Braves and is entering the last year of a two-year, $16MM free agent contract.
Syndergaard, meanwhile, landed 54th on BA’s top 100 back in 2013. He, too, was assigned a 60 grade, with “the ceiling of a frontline starter.” Syndergaard, who had been drafted out of high school, was a 20-year-old who had yet to pitch above low-A, but he was considered a polished pitcher at the time. He ascended quickly to top-15 prospect status, reaching the Majors in 2015 and finishing fourth in the Rookie of the Year voting. He pitched well for the Mets in their 2015 run to the World Series and finished eighth in the 2016 NL Cy Young voting.
Though Syndergaard missed most of the 2017 season with a lat injury and all of 2020 due to Tommy John surgery, he’s tallied 18.8 WAR for the Mets and should be a factor in 2021 before becoming eligible for free agency.
While Buck and Becerra didn’t pan out for the Mets and d’Arnaud fell short of expectations, the acquisition of Syndergaard alone made the Dickey trade a resounding success for the Mets and Alderson. The chances of the Cubs having landed a player of Syndergaard’s caliber in the Darvish deal are remote, but we’ll have to check back in five years or so.
With Dickey seeking a reasonable two-year extension, a suitor could have expected to control him for three years in total, which is what the Blue Jays wound up getting. Dickey would only need to be paid $30MM over the three-year term, in an offseason where Zack Greinke landed a six-year, $147MM contract and Anibal Sanchez signed for five years and $80MM. Dickey would be paid just 40% of the AAV the market’s top pitcher received in free agency, on a much shorter term. In 2021, Trevor Bauer signed for three years and $102MM, an average annual value of $34MM. With the Cubs picking up $3MM of Darvish’s tab, the Padres got him for $59MM over three years – a $19.67MM AAV that is about 58% of Bauer’s. Bauer’s contract could easily become $85MM over two years assuming he opts out of the final year, however, and then Darvish’s AAV would be about 46% of Bauer’s.
It’s not a perfect parallel, and both Dickey and Darvish came with some risks, but it’s fair to say the Cubs weren’t offering quite the same payroll-friendly ace the Mets were – especially with teams reeling from the pandemic. The Cubs surely would have upped their return had they been willing to include more cash or take on a bad contract. Talent-wise, Dickey was a 38-year-old knuckleballer who had never shown strikeout potential prior to 2012. Darvish, on the other hand, made four All-Star teams prior to 2020 and consistently rates among the top strikeout pitchers in the game. Darvish seems more likely to deliver ace-caliber seasons for his new team than Dickey was, though he poses a greater health risk. As it turned out, Dickey never reached 2 WAR in any of his four seasons with the Blue Jays.
Like the Mets in 2012, the Cubs didn’t have any real urgency to make a deal this offseason, and should have held out unless they were bowled over. The Padres had already traded the aforementioned Patiño, the game’s #23 prospect, but still had prospects ranked #10, #11, #36, #76, and #85. The Cubs received none of them. Though the Cubs threw in a credible backup catcher in Victor Caratini, their return was one year of righty Zach Davies, plus prospects Reginald Preciado, Owen Caissie, Ismael Mena, and Yeison Santana. None of the four prospects are near the Majors, and all of them received 45 grades from MLB.com. Santana, who recently turned 20, is the oldest of the bunch. We’ll let future Hall of Famer Clayton Kershaw take it from here, in his interview with Jorge Castillo of the L.A. Times:
“There’s a lot of smart guys in front offices. Figure something out that’s easier to do than trading away a [star]. Just, for example, a potential Cy Young [Award winner] in [Yu] Darvish, who has been one of the top five pitchers in baseball for a year and a half, for prospects that could potentially be good but they’re 17, 18 years old. And [Zach] Davies is a great pitcher, but to me, that’s just not . . . For the Chicago Cubs to do that, it’s not good. It’s just not good.”
Kershaw would know. He’s finished in the top two for Cy Young voting five times, and his big-market employer never entertained trading him immediately thereafter.
So then, why do the deal if you’re the Cubs? A mandate from ownership to reduce payroll is the likely answer, as the Cubs removed $59MM of Darvish’s $62MM commitment from the books. Darvish carries a $21MM CBT payroll hit for 2021, yet the Cubs added $31.33MM back to the payroll in Davies, Joc Pederson, Jake Arrieta, Andrew Chafin, Trevor Williams, Jake Marisnick, Austin Romine, Jonathan Holder, and Kohl Stewart. The new acquisitions project to 6.1 WAR, while Darvish projects for 3.8 by himself. This sequence of moves represents a clear step back, as the Cubs could have easily kept Darvish’s 3.8 WAR out of one roster spot, while adding all the same supplementary help aside from Davies.
The 2021 Cubs currently carry a CBT payroll of about $170MM, more than $45MM shy of where they sat last year. They project as roughly a .500 team, and fit in well in a division where most of the teams aren’t really pushing for the title.
8
Only thing Cubs got going for them this year is a massive payroll and beating the Pirates.
Juan Uribe Profundo
Trading Dickey was shrewd, he was an obvious regression candidate who was unlikely to repeat that season again. Still not sure what the Cubs are doing: it could well be that they have legitimate financial trouble and need to cut payroll, but I’m not sure anything their owner says about the economics of baseball is credible.
I’ve genuinely been surprised by the uninspiring packages that guys like Darvish and Arenado have gotten back. Did too many teams get burned by giving up top prospects in the mid-2010’s and now there’s a much greater reluctance to do so?
baseballpun
Nothing Tom Ricketts says about anything is credible.
1984wasntamanual
It’s really not the surprising when you look at what the surplus value of those players are. Fans want to ignore the contracts that these players are signed to, teams don’t.
Travis’ Wood
This is true with Arenado, not Darvish. Arenado had little to no surplus value. Darvish had tons yet they sold him for way under market value. Just an awful trade for the Cubs when there was simply no reason to rush to move him. And then they go out and spend that money on a bunch of meh veterans. The whole plan is incredibly strange.
seamaholic 2
I don’t think the league evaluates Darvish like you do. The fact that (by everything we know) no one else bid higher on him than the Padres when everyone needs SP’s tells you what you need to know. He started late in MLB and turns 35 this year. His history is brilliance followed by mediocrity followed by injury. I don’t think he’s worth what you think he’s worth.
Travis’ Wood
Or maybe not many teams were willing to take on that money at this moment in time? And if that’s the case just hold him for a few months or a year… this return just not justify the rush to trade him. Or maybe the Cubs just think these prospects are better than everyone else? It’s possible to make a bad trade…. Go look at mlb trade values on Twitter. The Darvish trade was literally rejected by their model. Whereas trades like Lindor and Arenado were accepted as completely fair.
Ma4170
Yeah i think the financial situations aftrt Covid for many teams just aren’t ideal, so there are only a few willing to take on salary… if Darvish is making $35M over next three years he either doesn’t get traded or gets much more in return
Lanidrac
Well, trading Darvish was mostly a salary dump, so they were in a rush. The Cubs still saved more money than they spent elsewhere, and even if the money was even they needed to fill their hole in left field (whose salary was basically covered by non-tendering Schwarber, anyway), add depth to the rotation, and rebuild their bullpen that they couldn’t have done otherwise.
1984wasntamanual
It’s also possible that MTV/public projection systems value Darvish more than ML front offices do.
And you say to just hold him for a few months or a year…what if he gets hurt, or sucks? This is a time when they knew they’d be able to move him. Wasn’t it just last year that people were talking about how horrible his contract was?
Pads Fans
@lols1026 Arenado averaged 5.8 fWAR the previous 3 full seasons, 2017-2019. Going into his age 29 season in 2021, there is no reason to think he will not equal those numbers for the next couple of years at least. That level of performance was worth $45.9 to $47.8 million per season according to Fangraphs.
He will be earning $35 million the next 3 seasons so even if you do not factor inevitable inflation for FA contracts, that is substantial surplus value. More than 25% per season.
Darvish is going into his age 34 season and is owed $22, $19, and $18 million the next 3 seasons. He averaged 2.13 fWAR the last 3 full seasons. That level of performance was worth a total of $50.1 million over those 3 seasons, $29.4, $1.9, and $19.8 million or about $17 million per season.
If you assume that no decline is coming for Darvish, not typically a good assumption with a 34 year old player, that is a negative surplus value of about $2.5 million per season. That is why they didn’t get any prospects of note.
Conflating higher AAV with lack of surplus value is a common mistake and one that you obviously made here.
Still a terrible move for the Cubs, but certainly not one that came from a point of strength in terms of surplus value.
Pads Fans
MTV is a joke.
revolver
The author will regret this article in 2 years , There is a reason he is a baseball blogger and front office executives get paid
7 ffigures.
Travis’ Wood
You might want to look at mlb trade values on Twitter to see the actual surplus value of these players. You need to look at projections not past results. Your numbers are way off. You say they’re a joke yet you’re not even using projections lol Arenado has negative surplus value
cpdpoet
Agreed, I miss J.J. Jackson, Nina Blackwood, Martha Quinn, the blond guy and the curly haired guy too….
Deleted_User
@Pads Fans If Arenado is as good as you think he is, it is pretty certain that he will opt out. And it was reported on here that the majority of the money the Rockies are paying the Cardinals comes after the opt-outs have passed and only if Arenado doesn’t opt out.
Also, if Darvish has negative surplus value, how can you say that trading him was a “terrible move?” Especially when the guys they got back for him all come with some upside.
Pads Fans
Ryan, The facts are clear on surplus value. Not an IF. Why is it certain he will opt out? Maybe he will want to stay a Cardinal since he signed an extension to his contract. You really have no idea what he will do and neither does anyone else, so your pronouncements that he will leave is a mistake on your part.
The money the Rockies are paying has no bearing on his surplus value. As for when the money is paid, you have it backwards. They are paying all of his 2021 salary.
legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/na…
Colorado agreed to pay $51M, including Arenado’s 2021 salary of $35M ($15M paid as earned and $20M deferred)
It was a terrible PR move to move Darvish.. None of the guys they got in return will help the team for at least 3-4 years and most do not have much upside. Preciado would be the exception to that if he can continue to improve, but he is 17. Reading the article you are commenting about helps.
Deleted_User
@Koamalu aka outinleftfield aka websoulsurfer if that is the game you want to play, just go look at previous opt-out decisions. It always always always comes down to the bills. You keep saying that the player might opt out or in based on whether or not he likes his team and you keep being wrong about it just like everything else you say. You also said that Nolan would waive his opt out as part of the trade. Not only did he not do that, they had to give him a second opt-out to get him to approve a trade. But you conveniently avoided addressing that one and you will probably do the same again here.
I never said Nolan doesn’t have surplus value so that is a straw man on your part. All I said was that if he does then he will opt out.
The money the Rockies are paying may not have any bearing on the surplus value in his total contract, but it has every bearing on his surplus value to St. Louis. Because Colorado is paying part of his salary, there is a range where he isn’t worth his total contract but is worth the part Colorado is paying.
In order to be a good GM you have to COMPLETELY tune out things like “PR” or “optics.” If Darvish’s contract is underwater, moving him at all is a plus. We’ll see what Reginald Preciado and the other guys they got in that trade end up doing.
YourDreamGM
@pads fan. What was the 50 million for? Is there 50 million worth of extra prospects that weren’t mentioned anywhere? Please explain all this surplus again.
Pads Fans
What? Rockies kicked in $51 million in the trade for Arenado.
“Arenado averaged 5.8 fWAR the previous 3 full seasons, 2017-2019. Going into his age 29 season in 2021, there is no reason to think he will not equal those numbers for the next couple of years at least. That level of performance was worth $45.9 to $47.8 million per season according to Fangraphs.
He will be earning $35 million the next 3 seasons so even if you do not factor inevitable inflation for FA contracts, that is substantial surplus value. More than 25% per season.”
Pads Fans
Ryan, I was wrong about Arenado giving up the opt out to approve the trade, but then the Cardinals gave up practically nothing and got 1/4 of his deal paid including ALL of his 2021 salary. The Cardinals lose nothing of consequence other than Gomber if he does opt out and they have the chance that one year of the best 3B in baseball will put them into a position to have a deep run in the playoffs.
You have no clue what is going to happen. Neither do I. Neither does anyone including Arenado at this point.
Can you name any players on large contracts that did opt out?
Many players, including those that you said absolutely would not extend or resign choose to stay where they are or took less money to play where they wanted to play. You have no clue if Arenado will do the same.
Read what I said about Arenado and surplus value. The facts are clear.
You brought up the money the Rockies are paying and you were absolutely wrong about it. Did you admit that? Have you ever admitted when you were wrong?
Pads Fans
@lols1026 Ok. I can safely ignore anything you say. MTV is a joke. Its not worth looking at anything that you bring up from there.
Surplus value is based on what players have done and what that was worth in FA values that particular season. Its not based on projections. My numbers are what happened.
He is coming into his age 29 season so no reason to think his performance will drop immediately. In fact, its more likely that the next couple of seasons will match that level of performance.
Travis’ Wood
If you think surplus value is based on past production and not projections then you have literally no clue what surplus value means…. give me a specific reason why it’s a “joke” besides your random opinion. Which is clearly pretty delusional since you have no idea what surplus value actual is or how it’s calculated lol. Maybe go read a Fangraphs article on how to calculate surplus value before you keep embarrassing yourself haha
Travis’ Wood
The fact that you think Arenado will average 5.8 fWAR per year for the next few years is actually hilarious. Go look at his ZIPS projections. You sure like to pretend you know what you’re talking about but you are beyond clueless. Yikes…
Deleted_User
WoW! You actually admitted that you were wrong about Nolan waiving his opt out! Well I’ll be damned! Now that wasn’t so hard was it? Maybe there is hope for you yet…
“… but then the Cardinals gave up practically nothing and got 1/4 of his deal paid including ALL of his 2021 salary.”
It doesn’t matter that the Cards gave up nothing and that the Rockies are paying $51m of his contract. The point is he didn’t waive his opt out. And neither did James Shields when he was traded.
“You have no clue what is going to happen. Neither do I. Neither does anyone including Arenado at this point.”
I do know that if he is producing surplus value on his contract (the whole thing, not just the part St. Louis is paying) he will opt out. And if he isn’t, he will opt in. That is how opt out clauses work. Always has been.
“Can you name any players on large contracts that did opt out?”
Off the top of my head… Alex Rodriguez, Zack Greinke, Yoenis Cespedes and Stephen Strasburg. They were all obviously worth more than the remainder of their contracts and so they all re-entered free agency and got more money. If Nolan Arenado is really as valuable of a commodity as you think he is, he will do the same. Or at the very least he will leverage the opt-out into an extension like Justin Upton or Aroldis Chapman.
“Read what I said about Arenado and surplus value. The facts are clear.”
Read my comment. I never said you were wrong about his surplus value. Just that if you are correct, he will 100% opt out.
“You brought up the money the Rockies are paying and you were absolutely wrong about it. Did you admit that? Have you ever admitted when you were wrong?”
Actually I repeated what they said on this site. So go take that up with Connor Byrne.
jbigz12
That analysis takes a lot of context out of the equation.
The last time we saw Arenado step on the field—he wasn’t very good. Small sample size in a weird year—OK. He’s been at Coors his whole career so we don’t know what he’s going to do outside of that. Might be great—might not. He also has an opt out in his deal so if he’s truly as good as you’re projecting—he could easily take that opt out and walk away. Throws your surplus value equation off a whole lot.
Darvish on the other hand was bad for the first 1.5 years w/ the Cubs. He just wasn’t right. The last year and a half—he’s been one of the best pitchers in the game. I think there’s far more than just some baseline stat analysis for a couple years that goes into this. Yu is a very impactful addition in a pitching starved league. Throwing out his 2020 after seeing what he did in the second half of 2019 is negligent.
Tim Dierkes
I think the Bauer comparison shows there’s surplus value in the Darvish contract right now.
JackStrawb
@Pads Fans You actually cherrypicked the seasons to be examined, then patted yourself on the back for a job well done.
Impressive, in its way.
Black Ace57
One thing not really touched on in this article is how Toronto viewed Thor at the time. BA rankings aside, there was a lot written at the time about him being the Blue Jays’ next Roy Halladay. To get someone with that praise in a deal for a 38 year old pitcher was big.
The other thing is looking at the NL East and the Mets at the time. The Phillies were just one year off their 102 win season though starting to decline, the Braves were a 94 win team, and the Nats had 98 wins with that really talented young team everyone viewed as a potential dynasty. Meanwhile, the Mets were aging and repeatedly choked in the past 4 years. It was a great time to trade players unlike now with the Cubs.
its_happening
Toronto also didn’t view Yan Gomes as a catcher at the time and had no problem dumping him to Cleveland. The powers had some strange views and judgement on certain talent.
holecamels35
Ask the Indians about trading cy young winning pitchers, I think they dealt four of them, Sabathia, Lee, Kluber, and Bauer though Bauer didn’t win one there. Seems they are traded quite often because of pitcher voliatility in general
Luc 2
Bauer was a nutjob in Cleveland. He easily could’ve been a poison in the clubhouse. To much talking from him he and Francona don’t seem like the 2 to be together
Travis’ Wood
Has nothing to do with pitcher volatility and everything to do with the Indians not being able to or not wanting to pay them lol. And with Kluber it was also major injury concerns
Diggydugler
Why are you opening old wounds!
junkyard
They’re just droning on and on…
seamaholic 2
In both the cases of Darvish and Arenado, I wonder sometimes what people are imagining went down in the Cubs and Rockies’ front offices before those trades. Do people think there were other teams knocking the door down to make a better offer but those two GM’s stubbonly would deal only with the Padres and Cards respectively? Of course not. Those were the only teams bidding, and for good reason. Arenado was owed $200m and his contract was under water, and Darvish is turning 35 this season and has a long history of both injury and inconsistency. Yeah he finished 2nd in Cy Young but in a 12-start season. What you can say is the Cubs should have just kept him, and that’s fair (the Rockies couldn’t have kept Arenado but that’s their own fault for ticking him off so bad). But the returns were about right.
Diggydugler
Dodgers say Bauer’s “2020 Cy Young award” is legit and he is an elite ACE worth $42M per year.
Luc 2
(insert throwing up emoji)
Travis’ Wood
The return was absolutely not right for Darvish lol Arenado yes but the Cubs got nowhere near market value for Darvish. Not to mention there was zero reason to trade him now especially if this was the return.
Franco27
The reason to trade him was they needed to reduce payroll. At the same time they wanted to get some young players in the minor league system with high upside. Nobody can say the return wasn’t good enough until these 17-18 year olds have a chance to develop in the minors. Plus they got a very capable starting pitcher in return.
Phantom X
I’d have to disagree. The young players graded out at 45. That’s 15 points below the steal that the Mets got. This has everything to do with cutting payroll, and the continued cheapness of most ball clubs. Rizzo will be the only one that signs to an extension and Bryant will either be traded mid-season or be a free agent at the end of the year. With Baez I’m up in the air, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they let him go too.
Travis’ Wood
Yes you can say the return wasn’t good enough. You don’t evaluate trades in hindsight, that’s awful analysis. A handful of 45 FVs is an awful return. Go check out MLB trade values on Twitter. The trade was so bad it was literally rejected by their model. For comparison, the Snell, Lindor and even Arenado trades were all accepted as very fair by the model. The Darvish trade is just a complete head scratcher
Franco27
The young players are all 17-18. A couple of them haven’t played professionally yet. Hard to get an accurate grade on them yet. It’s a risk, but let’s see how they develop before declaring this a bad trade.
Phantom X
Noah was graded as a 60 after a year in A-, so I’ll give these 1 year and see where they grade. Sound fair to you?
northsidecrossrifles
Those are last years grades, from an outlet who is usually behind the curb in prospect analysis, while their analysis is based on no minor league baseball, and none of the revultionary concept related to the pandemic of teams sharing data. However, there were team camps and some teams opted into minor league data sharing. SD and Chi were 2 of those teams. The cubs had that data, as well as their own scouting reports from these players drafts and signing periods. Seeing as they got “extra” info on players they were rumored to heavily scout not too long ago, this could have made these players more attractive and given them the best combination of high ceiling talent. The cubs have been excellent at developing position players over the last decade, so they probably feel comfortable with their system in place to get these kids to the majors, and with the upside of 3/4 players (with Santana having a higher floor in comparison to upside), a player development system as employed by the north siders could show this trade paying major dividends down the line. To play devil’s advocate, it could also blow up in their face. But basing your reasoning only on outdated prospect evals from an outlet that’s behind the curb while not factoring in the data sharing element that the cubs had access to is short sighted in this particular situation
Travis’ Wood
The Cubs have been great at developing prospects? Really? Bryant was a can’t miss top 2 pick, Baez was a top 10 pick, Almora failed, Russell failed, Schwarber did not reach his potential, Happ looks decent but we’ll see on that. Contreras was a success story but that’s about it outside of guys who would not have failed anywhere. Not to mention the cubs essentially haven’t developed a good pitcher in a decade. The results are mixed at best and their ability to develop prospects has been way overhyped based on 2016 and what people expected these guys to become.
Travis’ Wood
Also if you want to go by more recent analysis Fangraphs has these guys at 50 FV, 45, 40/45 and 35. Pretty much the same and well short of what the Mets got for Dickey or the Rays for Snell. Not even in the same ballpark
northsidecrossrifles
The names you listed just proves my point. I specifically said POSITION PLAYERS, and no team over the last decade has had their hands in developing so many quality MLB position players. You have to factor in David Bote, Jorge Soler, Tommy La Stella, Gleyber Torres, Jeimer Candelerio, Eloy Jimenez, Caritini, and so many more. The only team with more homegrown positional WAR since 2015 is the Astros. Prior to 2015 the cubs had their hands on quality pieces such as Josh Donaldson, Dj LeMaheui, and several other pieces. Pitching has been another story, and his been an issue since the post Prior/Wood/ Zambrano days.
Also, there is no such thing as a “can’t miss prospect.” If so, why did Mark Appel get taken ahead of Bryant and flame out in the minors? What happened to Tyler Kolek? Brady Aiken?
You’re also acting like if a player doesn’t reach their ceiling, they’re not valuable. Even a guy like Scwharber with his flaws is still a very useful piece. As disappointing as Russell turned out to be, he was great when we needed him the most in the 2016 season, and useful for a period after that. His character issues seemed to rule him. The vast majority of players never hit their ceiling, and your memory in relation to the quality players the cubs have had their hand in developing is highly suspect.
northsidecrossrifles
The names you listed just proves my point. I specifically said POSITION PLAYERS, and no team over the last decade has had their hands in developing so many quality MLB position players. You have to factor in David Bote, Jorge Soler, Tommy La Stella, Gleyber Torres, Jeimer Candelerio, Eloy Jimenez, Caritini, and so many more. The only team with more homegrown positional WAR since 2015 is the Astros. Prior to 2015 the cubs had their hands on quality pieces such as Josh Donaldson, Dj LeMaheui, and several others. Pitching has been another story, and his been an issue since the post Prior/Wood/ Zambrano days.
Also, there is no such thing as a “can’t miss prospect.” If so, why did Mark Appel get taken ahead of Bryant and flame out in the minors? What happened to Tyler Kolek? Brady Aiken?
You’re also acting like if a player doesn’t reach their ceiling, they’re not valuable. Even a guy like Scwharber with his flaws is still a very useful piece. As disappointing as Russell turned out to be, he was great when we needed him the most in the 2016 season, and useful for a period after that. His character issues seemed to rule him. The vast majority of players never hit their ceiling, and your memory in relation to the quality players the cubs have had their hand in developing is highly suspect.
Travis’ Wood
Haha you’re seriously including David bote, candelario, Caratini and la Stella as success stories? Donaldson???? Yeah he was sure a huge prospect for the cubs lmao…. Wow… DJ was nothing for the Cubs either. Counting those guys is ridiculous. Eloy and Gleyber I’ll grant you, I wasn’t thinking of them since they had been traded. And you realize that many of these success stories are simply because they were terrible year after year and got top 10 pick after top 10 pick? Clearly the Cubs can develop prospects but it’s not like they’re some factory like the Dodgers. If so they wouldn’t have fallen off so hard after 2016, although part of that collapse is a multitude of bad FA signings and trades like giving away Gleyber for a rental reliever which is one of the worst trades in recent memory. And even if they have developed the very best position players in the last 5-7 years it means nothing for the actual value of these 4 players they acquired. You are completely speculating on everything here and just assuming they have more value than previously reported based on… well based on your own opinion and gut feeling. It’s clear you are a cubs fan and your bias shows lol. Also yes, in hindsight it’s very clear that Bryant would’ve been successful wherever he was drafted. Attributing his success to the Cubs farm system is absurd
northsidecrossrifles
Did the cubs not play a role in their development? Has their system not been a quality source for big league position players? These are rather simple questions that we both know the answers to.
As far as including them, why not? They’re a mixture of quality pieces ranging from multi positional utility types from mashers capable of playing key offensive roles. The cubs played a hand in all of their development, and the ones that were recently traded away were highly sought after. All its serving is to show that there is a track record of having success at developing quality MLB position players. You can ignore this, as well as the homegrown positional WAR tallies all you’d like, but the fact is the cubs have been successfully developing position players for quite some time.
So you’re going to continue to believe some fallacy about top ten picks somehow being sure fire things. If that’s your position then I rest my case. Your making my argument for me.
As far as “in hindsight Bryant its very clear Bryant would have been successful anywhere” then why didn’t the astros recognize how clearly superior Bryant was and draft him? At the time Bryant’s ceiling was that of Troy Glaus, and he was criticized by many across baseball for the swing and miss to his game. The cubs even got a lot of flak for taking him over Jon Grey and a few other arms, but now you’re trying to paint the picture they deserve zero credit for helping to mold a player with many perceived holes. Talk about revisionist history.
And you call a nearly a .580 winning % since 2016 “falling off” ?! They’ve won 2 division titles since then, and missed the playoffs once while never running a losing record. Sure, they didn’t win multiple world series, but falling off would insinuate they weren’t highly competitive, which they were. They clearly need some long term adjustments, but as their roster sits right now they will still compete in a super weak NL central. The cards should be slight favorites, but anything can happen with cubs and brewers in striking distance, and the reds aren’t exactly horrific.
Isn’t prospect evalulation based on speculation? So you aren’t speculating to an extent? You’re also the one denying the effects of data sharing in relation to assessment of prospects, as well as conveniently ignoring that pitching is the most volatile asset in baseball. Look at the teams who’ve waited to sell starters. The Indians got little for Kluber. The tigers could have sold Michael Fulmer for a kings ransom but now he has little value. Verlander was traded as mostly a salary dump. If you’re looking to move an asset as volatile as starting pitching, its better to do it a yr too early as opposed to a year too late. Now the cubs have more financial flexibility for the potentially historic 2022 FA class, and they aren’t on the hook for Darvish’s age 36 and 37 seasons at 20 mil a piece. Did I absolutely love the deal? No. But does it make more sense than 90% of people are making it out to be? Most definitely
Hudson6
Prices have changed and these are the current prices. Nobody is giving away half their farm for 1 player anymore.
Darvish is 35 and has a history of injuries. Last year the Cubs would have given him away for free, and probably would have thrown in a prospect or 2 to get you to bite.
This IS current market value. Get used to it.
1984wasntamanual
Dickey and Snell weren’t tied to a $60m commitment.
YourDreamGM
Old Jed should have checked mlb trade values or ran it by you guys first. Lol.
revolver
So was Brian Taylor and Apnell. Your point?
Travis’ Wood
There is so much bias here it’s not even worth responding to cause I dont even know where to start, my goodness. I dont have the energy to argue with someone who’s so clearly a “fan” that they’ve become subjective rather than objective. I used the word hindsight and you responded with “so why didn’t the Astros draft him”…. I cant even tell if you’re being serious at this point
northsidecrossrifles
@rols ahh, your response is “there’s so much bias” yet your only point is how I criticized using hindsight as a legitimate method when assessing players. If there was really such massive bias oozing from my comments, you would be able to come up with stronger examples than mere rephrasings, as well as more to back up your platitudes that you’ve sadly rittled the comment section with. Coming from the guy whose main sources are “go look at twitter” and who evidently has zero ideas of what factors go into influencing markets while thinking a market in 2012 is identical to the market that currently exists. I mean you can’t even grasp the most basic of concepts such as markets being fluid, NOT fixed. Its almost as if you’re trolling, and I hope for your sake you are.
Travis’ Wood
Dude literally your entire comment is biased, you sound like a complete cubs fanboy. You mention David bote, Tommy la Stella, candelario as if every team in the league hasn’t produced countless guys like this. You literally mentioned donaldson and DJ who were nothing with the Cubs…. you just wanted to point out that they used to be cubs as if that means anything… you’re acting as if the Cubs haven’t fallen off and haven’t been a massive disappointment since 2016…. clear bias cause anyone with an objective view can see they have. Bad move after bad move. And your response to the trade is literally that these older FVs don’t use the most updated data…. while just wildly speculating that the newer data is better? And not even responding to the fact that Fangraphs has very similar rankings? Bias, bias, bias. You’re just a homer lol your name even has north side in it. And you still clearly have not looked up the Twitter user I was talking about since you think I’m saying “go look at Twitter”. For like the 5th time, I’m talking about the MLB trade values user and there’s a website too. Why don’t you actually look it up? Their model rejected the trade because it was so lopsided. Even if you doubled or tripled Preciado’s value based on “new data” that you’re speculating on they still come up way way short. It’s hard to to respond to every single point you make because it’s clearly biased and you clearly have no intention of checking the resources I’m providing and you’re just ignoring Fangraphs’ rankings which have 3 of these players as below average prospects so why should I waste my time with this nonsense? I have no time for fanboys lol I like to deal with objective analysis. I like how you also fail to address that many of the Cubs success stories have simply been because of repeated top 10 draft picks…. there aren’t many teams who have failed to build a good system with that many top picks. So yeah, you’re very clearly not dealing in reality here. And you keep talking about how the market has changed even though I said multiple times that Snell brought back a haul despite having more recent injuries and less dominant performance. His age and contract make him a better asset than Darvish but the gap is much smaller than the gap in the two trade packages. Even the Lindor and Arenado trades this offseason were fair for both sides. Open your eyes and stop thinking like a fan. Not responding again until you actually go do some research on the actual surplus value of this trade cause the facts are clear.
northsidecrossrifles
@lrols idc if you respond or not. Live your life the way you see fit, and more power to you. But if you’ve bothered to read any of my comments in this thread, I do not act like the cubs are God’s gift to baseball. I’ve simply stated facts such as they’re 2nd in homegrown positional war since 2015, and they’ve had their hand in developing a bevy of useful MLB assets who are position players. You do not need to be a perennial MVP candidate to hold value. If we were saving any form of value for only all star caliber players, that would be quite mundane, wouldn’t it? But back to the point I thought was clear, but maybe to you it wasn’t. My connecting the dots of the cub’s propensity to develop position players was all in relation to how their current FO MAY have preferred the lower level positional talent to maximize the talent they could get in return, seeing as that has been an obvious strength for quite some time, whereas pitching has been a noticeable weakness.
The examples you’re insinuating are not applicable were players who may have not been stars with the cubs, but that was never my argument. My point of using that as an example was to show that the cubs have had their hand in developing positional talent for even longer than the average fan realizes. They may have made poor decisions in the value they placed on that talent, but it was talent they assisted in developing nonetheless.
I have never stated, nor insinuated the cubs are the same great team they were in 2016. But the term “fall off” is asinine, seeing as they’ve been highly competitve with nearly a .580 winning % and 2 division titles.
Your reading comprehension needs work. You were the one who has consistently fixated on an arbitrary ranking by stating “45s lol” when all I’ve done is point out how the actual scouting reports themselves from more accredited outlets than mlb.com paint a better picture in terms of ceiling than “45s lol”. I’ve admitted its a risky proposition to obtain 4 teenagers in return for your ace (albeit one with long term question marks). I’ve never acted like its the greatest return. I’m not the one tied to the assigned future values, and I’m also not the one refusing to acknowledge that MLB teams have access to way more data than we do, and the cubs themselves had access to SD’s data, which could have influenced their thinking. You time and time again ignore this variable, and act like you and I have ALL of the data, and your model of choice on twitter is infallible.
Speaking of “your” model, I’m aware of MTV, and many other “models” used throughout the game. Models can be useful, but they are not be all, end all measurements. Read some Tetlock and you will come to find that even the most credible experts have difficulty predicting outcomes, assigning true values,and any subjective values themselves are always open for debate. Its something we as humans have always struggled with, though I have hope we can at least improve. You have acted throughout this entire thread like your preferred model is the same model every team is using to make every decision, while making comparisons across drastically different markets, nearly a decade apart, all while comparing 2 very different pitchers with very different contracts. Its such an unrealistic comparison that it baffles me you haven’t dropped it. I’m glad you’ve at least started to use Snell as a comp, seeing as at least the markets are very comparable. It appeared that Darvish’s advanced age (he’s nearly 7 years older than Snell), poor performance record in his first two years with the cubs (as well as periods of brilliance followed by being merely good), and the 20 mil until his age 37 season reduced his actual value more than any of us realized. Though both Darvish and Snell are somewhat of injury concerns, Darvish’s age makes his value take a greater hit concerning that factor. Combine that with the much bigger salary commitment, the years Darvish’s deal runs through, and that appears to be all the cubs could get. A solid starter in Davies and 4 teenagers with varying degrees of high ceilings, but far away from the Show. That doesn’t necessarily mean Hoyer should have moved him if he thought the package was light, seeing as there is merit to attempting to move him at the deadline for a potentially better package. But there is also more risk involved for reasons I don’t think I have to rehash bc I believe you realize the downside to that as well. Like mentioned above, there’s also the chance Hoyer liked the package more than you or me due to the data and updated scouting reports. Honestly, neither of us knows. All I’ve been trying to do is get you to look at another angle where WE are the guys lacking the same info the teams have, and that info could be crucial in the decision making process.
Furthermore, you think Zach Davies has zero surplus value, when even by the most lukewarm measurements he has at least several million. Can you at least finally agree markets are not fixed, they’re fluid?
As far as the picks go, you still haven’t answered my question. Are top ten picks locks? Yes, they have higher hit rates than a 30th rounder, but prospects themselves are still volatile and their projections are part art form, part science.
And what is a “below average prospect”? Is that another “fixed” variable of yours like you seem to think markets are? Maybe we’ve been talking past each other, but as you can tell, the market issue is an obvious point of contention lol. But back to it…. All I’ve said is MLB.com’s ratings are outdated, and in a season with no minor league ball, but some teams sharing data, we should put even less stock in outdated ratings, and at least consider that the data sharing and the in person observations may hold more weight than what you, me, or some guy on mlb.com can regurgitate from last year. Is that so controversial to you? I’ve never acted like this is a slam dunk trade for the cubs, yet your keep on assigning me a cubs homer label….
Its like instead of addressing my points, you’re more interested in using a label as a shield or bludgeon, and then you repeat some platitude like “go do more research” or the “facts are clear” without even stopping and thinking about what I said, and the context in how I stated it.
In all seriousness, do you really think a “cubs homer” would claim the cards have a better roster and should be the favorites, or admit the white sox are stacked and should be the top team in Chicago in 2021?
For the last time, I don’t put all of my stock in any person’s subjective trade value models, nor should you, or anyone for that matter. They’re very interesting, but acting like that is the defining reality of a trade (while ignoring most other variables) is highly suspect. We only have hints at how teams are valuing given players, at a given times, and that can change with the wind, while individual players themselves can have drastically different values from org to org depending on org specific factors that differ across the league such as risk tolerance, current roster construction, future internal projections, payroll, etc.etc.etc. (you get the point). To claim that ANY one system is the alpha and omega of MLB assessment defies baseball evalulation in and of istelf.
Tim Dierkes
I don’t think MLB.com is behind the curve on prospect evaluation. Jim Callis and Jonathan Mayo are excellent.
We can guess that the Cubs don’t think those four prospects are all 45s, that’s fair.
northsidecrossrifles
@Tim Dierkes That’s fair and thank you for your response. However, I do think they’re behind the curb because it takes them longer to update their rankings and apply new findings. Maybe that more conservative approach is an approach you and others value more than I do, and I think there can be merit to it seeing as it allows for new info and evals to stabilize. That’s fine and I can see the reasoning behind it. I’m more willing to lean toward fangraphs and a few other outlets due to their propensity to take the most current of information and apply it to their assessment(s). That’s what Eric Logenhagen does (when he has access to that info), which he also did specifically in this trade due to viewing 3 out of the 4 prospects in the deal during 2020. I’m less concerned with an assigned FV and more concerned with the scouting reports themselves.
seamaholic 2
Well, do you think there were better offers out there that the Cubs turned down? Not like it was a secret that Yu was available. And every competitive team in baseball needs a good SP. The market knows. Dude’s getting old and has never been consistent.
Phantom X
I’m not saying the trade wasn’t fair, because it was. 45 is what Yu is worth. My original point, I feel I may have strayed, was that this was nothing but a cost cutting measure, not about getting any high returns. As you’ve said, The Cubs knew he has little value and traded him for what he’s worth. Too many teams are being cheap. The Cubs have shown that they can spend, but they probably won’t even try to keep all of Baez, Bryant and Rizzo. They’ll now go back to a middle of the back team fighting for 3rd place.
DrDan75
I’m assuming that Kershaw was referring to Zach Davies rather than Kyle in his interview snippet. Kyle Davies has been out of baseball for quite a while now.
stymeedone
@rols
I’m of the opinion that you need to look up the term “market value.” The Cubs put him on the market, and got what it was willing to pay.
Travis’ Wood
Haha that’s not how it works whatsoever. I guess the Dbacks got market value when they traded for Shelby Miller right? By your definition literally every trade is “market value” which is utter nonsense. Go look up mlb trade values on Twitter. This trade was literally rejected by their model.
kodion
You’ve got that backwards, rols. Market value, they got. Speculation, you can read anywhere
northsidecrossrifles
@rols you’re assuming the market is the exact same as when Shelby Miller got dealt. These are completely different scenarios, with pitchers at different stages in their careers, as well as COVID causing global effects. These are drastically different situations
Travis’ Wood
Your definition of market value was literally that he got traded. And if the market is that bad right now then you hold him… trading him in a bear market makes no sense
revolver
– MLB trade values on Twitter. It was on the internet= must be fact.
CubsWS2016
Who or what determines “market value”? It is what someone is willing to pay AT THAT TIME. Despite what commenters say on any blog about the Cubs front office, or the owner, its highly unlikely they made the deal without contacting the other teams. Therefore the “market” for Darvish is what they received from the Padres.
Travis’ Wood
That’s not how this works at all. By that logic every single trade is market value. Go look up mlb trade values on Twitter and tell me they got market value lol
CubsWS2016
So you’re saying Darvish was not “shopped” to the teams not on his no-trade list?
Travis’ Wood
You are not understanding. By your logic every single trade is market value since that is what a team was willing to pay. That means that every trade would be completely fair yet that is obviously not the case. Just because a team made a trade it doesn’t mean they got fair value…. it’s about comparing the value going out compared to the value coming in. In this instance the padres got significantly more value. So much so that mlb trade values’ model rejected the trade lol
CubsWS2016
I do understand .You didn’t answer my question. Do you think he was shopped? If he was, do you think the Pads had the best to offer?
Travis’ Wood
Well based on this response you clearly don’t understand lol
northsidecrossrifles
Did you really just tell someone to go look up MLB trade values on twitter? I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm, or you actually believe what you’ve typed….. As far markets go, you just keep on ignoring that this yrs market was different than last yrs, which was different than the yr before and so on and so fourth. Markets are FLUID. They are not fixed variables.
Lanidrac
Who says every trade doesn’t count as “market value”? That’s different than “fair value.”
Hudson6
So baseball trade values rejected the trade. It is FAR from perfect! I am guessing it would have also rejected the Shields for Tatis trade, since he had never played an inning. That trade seems to have worked out well.
1984wasntamanual
Yeah, TVs is an interesting tool to see value, but trying to use that as the backbone of an argument is a pretty shaky foundation.
Travis’ Wood
Why would it be sarcasm? You clearly didn’t go look it up and clearly have no idea what I’m talking about… it’s a profile that breaks down trades logically based on surplus value…. you’re clueless lol. And I already mentioned Snell who was trade this same winter… you have to be trolling
northsidecrossrifles
@ Rols… dude… NO ONE needs to go to “the twatter” for anything other than people vomitting at one another. You can find more credible info on nearly every topic in a much more accredited place. I’ve seen various charts attempting to place values on players in relation to salary, projections, as well as assessing trades with these and more variables. You’re banking the entirety of your argument on a chart you found on twitter, and you’re ALSO claiming that this chart is an example of how all of the teams, as well as their front office personnel, evalulate their players, while this chart somehow magically encompasses every known variable that can influence a market…. Yes Alex, I’ll take delusional for $2,000
Travis’ Wood
Hahahahaha so when you are presented with resources your response is to just mock them before you even look at them? You have time to type all this nonsense but not to take 30 seconds and go look? If it’s that dumb then go look at it and then tell me how it’s wrong? If you hate Twitter so much then go to their actual website you moron… god people are so dumb. Maybe actually read what I’m talking about before bashing it? What a waste of my time…. you’re calling this delusional yet have not taken one second to do the actual research. What is wrong with people…. I’m embarrassed for you
That Baseball Fan
Makes me wonder if there is something “wrong” with Darvish that only the Cubs knew about. Only thing that makes any sense.
DrDan75
Even if there were “something wrong” with Darvish, it’s a good roll of the dice. The Padres gave up a pitcher who is going into his walk year and a few teenagers.
paindonthurt
What is wrong with him is his age, contract, and injury history. I personally think moving him was a great move. The part that looks bad is the return. I think all “fans” assumed the return would be much higher.
jakerafferty87
I’m pretty sure any injuries the Cubs knew about had to be disclosed before the trade was accepted. So maybe the Padres knew and that’s why the return sucks
paindonthurt
Injury history doesn’t mean injured currently. He has a lot of miles on that arm and projects closer to 40 in pitches thrown years.
CNichols
No one is saying that there was a bidding war for either Arenado or Darvish.
The whole point is that the Cubs and Rockies unnecessarily dealt elite players for minimal returns based on their ownership wanting to save money.
seamaholic 2
I have no dog in the Cubs fight, but I have no idea why people are saying their return was minimal. Zach Davies is really good, and something like 8 years younger than Yu. With Yu’s inconsistency, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he has a worse season than Davies, if not in 2021 then in 2022.
Travis’ Wood
You realize Davies only has one year of control right? And has essentially zero surplus value? They could’ve just re-signed Quintana or someone like that for the same value yet for some reason they took Davies back?
Loling @ you
Padres fans delusional logic is funny. Using the same sample size season to boost up darvish yet in the same breath using it to lower Davies value. Point is both had similar seasons, 1 younger and closer to free agency and 1 on a long term contract that up until last season was looking like an anchor. Would not be surprised to see both go back to 2019 numbers against the full league. The most hilarious case scenario would be that Davies maintains and darvish regresses and Cubs trade Davies at deadline for additional pieces adding more value.
Hammerin' Hank
Davies has never been great and never will be. He is just an innings eater, which has value, but far less than a good season from Darvish will give them.
I Beg To Differ
Says the guy who thought Darvish would net a better package than Snell received.
1984wasntamanual
Wait, who thought that Darvish would get more than Snell? That’s asinine.
Deleted_User
Lol you’re the guy who said the Padres asked the Cubs to take Zach Davies as a salary offset. Cuz apparently teams just give away good starting pitchers signed for dirt cheap. And apparently trading Davies didn’t open up a hole in the rotation that they had to trade for Joe Musgrove to fill.
Travis’ Wood
Davies has essentially zero surplus value lol
Deleted_User
According to Baseball Trade Values he has $2m surplus value. So not a bunch, but either way, the Padres aren’t going to just give him away when they have a need in the rotation.
CNichols
They didn’t just give him away, the Cubs obviously saw value in getting another SP and were willing to accept him as part of the return for Darvish. SD got to shed his $8.6M to free up that money for Yu. So both sides saw that as a win-win because SD gets to clear his salary while converting a #3 or 4 SP into a #1 or 2 SP and then Chicago plugs a hole in their rotation and maybe he increases his value this year and they flip him for a prospect, who knows.
Zach Davies is a totally fine mid to back end rotation piece, but the fact is he’s making $8.6M and on the open market you can acquire other mid to back end rotation pieces like Quintana and Paxton for very similar amounts. If you pay slightly more than that you can get Richards/Kluber who have a little more upside. Regardless, the point being at his salary even though Davies is a good pitcher, he has very minimal surplus value.
The value in this trade for the Cubs should have come in the form of controllable prospects, but the ones they got are so far from the bigs and have no experience so the return is lackluster.
Deleted_User
@CNichols calling a guy a salary offset implies that his original team asked his new team “Please take this guy off our hands.” If you are saying that the Padres asked the Cubs to take Davies to offset salary then yes, just giving him away is exactly what they did. But in reality, that is not what happened at all. SD didn’t “get” to shed Davies’ $8.6m because saying that they “got” to do it implies that it is a good thing. It’s not. Davies’ production just had to be replaced when they traded him. And in order to do that they had to trade even more prospects and still pay his replacement $4.4m. Would have made more sense to just keep Davies right? The Padres were not the ones who wanted Davies included in the Darvish trade. The Cubs were. The Padres did not see losing Davies as a win. They saw it as the cost of doing business. If the Padres saw losing Davies as a win, he would have either been flipped at the tender deadline for whatever they could get, or if no one was interested, he would have been non-tendered.
Stop it with this nonsense about players who are still in arb being traded as “salary offsets.” ONLY players with underwater contracts can be salary offsets.
My guess is that the Cubs still plan to try and contend in 2021, Darvish trade notwithstanding. Which would explain them holding onto Bryant, Rizzo, Baez and Contreras and adding Davies in the Darvish trade. As this article mentioned, trading a Cy Young runner-up when you are trying to contend isn’t the best idea but really their only competition for the division title is the Cardinals.
Deleted_User
Oh. And Zach Davies isn’t increasing his trade value. Is he not coming off his best season so far? Is he not in his final year of club control meaning at the deadline he will only have ~40% as much club control remaining as he has now?
northsidecrossrifles
@rols so do you think Zach Davies would get less than 8.6 mil on the open market? In 4/5 years as a full time starting pitcher, he’s been worth at least 2 WAR (bwar), while in his last 220 IP, he’s been worth 4.3 WAR. With a win being worth anywhere between 7-9 million (depending on your model of choice) on the open market, he most definitely has surplus value.
YourDreamGM
The way you talk the Cubs could have Davies and Kulber (or Happ who I thought was a tremendous value, as usual ) and lil extra money. Then 20 million next 2 years. Plus 4 high upside prospects. Plus prospects from Davies if Cubs are out of things. I expect Cubs to contend though.
Lanidrac
Who says saving money after a year of pandemic-driven losses (and perhaps some more losses this year) was unnecessary?
1984wasntamanual
Don’t you know, the posters here have a better grip on the economics of these teams than the people that own them do.
Pads Fans
Arenado’s contract was far from underwater. If it was, he would still be on the Rockies roster. From 2017-2020 he provided more than 25% surplus value and since he is going into his age 29 season there is no reason to believe he will do anything but continue that level of performance for a couple more seasons. Even if the back end of that deal in his age 32-35 seasons are underwater, the front end of that is so positive that it will wash out.
What makes the trade so bad from the Rockies standpoint is that they not only threw in money, but took little in terms of high level or high upside prospects.
The same cannot be said for the Cubs and Darvish since he had negative surplus value in 2017-2020 even with a great 2020. The Padres just have to hope they can eke out one full season of 2020 caliber ball over the next 3 seasons and have him carry them into the playoffs to make the deal worthwhile for them. At least they gave up very little in terms of prospects.
YourDreamGM
@pads fan. Then why did the Rockies eat 50 million?
Deleted_User
I never saw the exact figures regarding how much the Rockies are paying in each year. But they said on here that the majority of that $50m is paid only if Arenado doesn’t opt out. If he doesn’t opt out, that means his contract is 100% underwater.
Lanidrac
Actually, the majority of the $51M is going to pay for his salary this season. The Cardinals essentially get Arenado to play for them for free for the first year, although if he opts out they’ll still owe him a bunch of deferred money.
CNichols
@RemovePitcherWins Another typical comment of yours that is uninformed and this time just straight up false. Colorado is paying his entire 2021 salary which is $35M. If he opts out only the $15M for 2027 wouldn’t have to be paid.
Deleted_User
Bruh. I already realized that I got that wrong. And I heard it from one of the writers on this site so if we wanna be technical it was them that got it wrong.
The Padres still didn’t ask the Cubs to take Zach Davies as a salary offset. Only players with underwater contracts can be traded as salary offsets. If Davies’ contract was underwater, he’d have been non-tendered.
cbrookhouzen
The Cubs trade only looks good if Darvish is unable to pitch due to injury which is a risk for all pitchers.
Hammerin' Hank
Exactly right.
cwsOverhaul
Just like the Marlins were smart to offload lot of Giancarlo $$ at a good time, the Cubs (who not a fan of) picked an ideal time with Yu’s to a lesser $ degree after feasting on many poor mlb lineups in a very short season. Sell/dump high on older vets is what smart FOs do while masses proclaim they got fleeced. Tribe were also ripped for dealing high arm mileage Kluber to Texas. The BP arm they got in return could still work out for them like Cubs could additionally “hit” on 1-2 of the 4 teenage Pads prospects besides getting Davies. Cubs aren’t that good anyhow, so a reboot to spend again in ’22 or ’23 makes sense after more high $ player contracts are off the books to free agency.
Travis’ Wood
This would maybe make sense if they got some prospects better than 45 FV lmao. Also a lot of people including myself thought the return for Kluber was fair. I also think the Arenado trade was fair. Darvish, not so much. If this was the return just hold him
seamaholic 2
You’re vastly underestimating Davies and overestimating Darvish. Revisit your opinion in about six months.
Travis’ Wood
Nah. Look at the projections on Davies. Incredibly mediocre
cwsOverhaul
Projections on older pitchers are difficult, especially those with volatility. Treating a grade of 45 or 50 or 55 on teenage prospects as some sort of gospel is also dangerous. Good team scouts and talent developers see traits others may not. High grades also get put on prospects with raw talent that may be mentally weak or incredibly overhyped. There is as much art (and luck) as science for amateurs hitting or missing as mlb contributors down the road.
Flyby
I read this a while back on a current player you may recognize …. not saying any of these will turn this corner but especially being that far out it is not outside the realm of possibility.
“Looking back at the scouting reports from before deGrom was called-up to the majors, it is fascinating to see deGrom was viewed as a back of the rotation starter or bullpen arm. At that time, no one even contemplated deGrom as a Top 100 prospect. In fact, deGrom wasn’t even viewed as a Top 10 Mets prospect.
MLB Pipeline not only had deGrom outside their Top 20, they had him ranked behind pitchers like Rafael Montero, Gabriel Ynoa, Cory Mazzoni, Jack Leathersich, and Marcos Molina.”
Pads Fans
@lols1026 When have the projections on Davies ever been correct. He is not a high strike out pitcher so the projections miss on him year after year.
The bottom line is run prevention and he does that fairly well. Not a front of the rotation starter, but his career numbers are better than Bauer’s. With the ball being deadened in 2021 we will see pitchers like him that induce weak contact worth even more in terms of run prevention.
Travis’ Wood
Also comparing Stanton to Darvish is apples and oranges. That Stanton contract was completely underwater whereas Darvish has legit surplus value. Just not a comparison worth making
northsidecrossrifles
at this time last yr, the Darvish deal was under water. That’s the type of volatile asset a soon to be 35 yr old Darvish currently is. Maybe you’re ok with that risk. I can see how some people would want to sell an asset described as such. Its better to sell a player a year to early than a yr too late. Also, as mentioned above, fixating on these prospects being “45s lol” is short sighted. Being so so young, there could be drastic increases in value during the upcoming season, and the cubs have access to SD’s data on their players due to the data opt in certain teams agreed to bc of no minor league system. More accredited outlets such as Fangraph’s Eric Longehgen (i’m sorry i butchered his last name) are a lot more bullish on this package. It just doesn’t have normie baseball fan name recognition at the moment, so its been perceived as “bad” by people who aren’t very familiar with prospect evals
Travis’ Wood
Longenhagen has these guys at 50,45,40 and 35 so I’m not really sure what you’re talking about? Doesn’t matter the exact number anyways, I’m not fixated on a number. The point is this package is nowhere near the Dickey package (for literally one year of control) or the Snell package from this same offseason. Darvish is much older than Snell but Snell has had more recent injuries, less recent dominance and has never gone deep into games. Snell is the better asset but not by this much. The difference in returns is staggering and you seem to be pretty biased in your responses
Travis’ Wood
And again, go look up mlb trade values on Twitter. The package is so bad it was completely rejected by their model. Even if they’re undervaluing the prospects (which there’s zero actual evidence for outside of pure speculation) then it would still be a massive overpay
northsidecrossrifles
see my above comment regarding markets. They’re fluid, not fixed variables. They’re ever changing and year to year comparisons can be suspect at best, especially with the impact (perceived or real) covid has had. Your example (as well as the articles) of Dickey is a poor comparison. Dickey was a completely different pitcher, with a completely different skillset, on a more affordable deal, while being allowed to negotiate a team friendly extension during trade talks. The market during the Darvish trade and the market during the Dickey trade are not the same market, nor were the variables influencing the deals the same. I’m not sure how or why you’r3 failing to grasp fairly obvious concepts
northsidecrossrifles
I would say a 50 FV for a player that young is very bullish, with the article even admitting all of these players could take leaps in their respective rankings. Though there is a ton of risk in prospects that young. I personally am less risk averse toward young, high ceiling talent, especially when there is some quantity to it. However if you feel differently about that type of talent than I won’t fault you. I’m also less concerned about their number grades, and more prone to looking at the scouting reports and projections, but remember, you’re the person who initially had the issue with “a bunch of 45s lol” so its seems at least initially you’re the one with the fixation on the numbers. Maybe that’s not true, and I’m glad we’ve clarified that, but its definitely how it came off from my perspective
Pads Fans
LMAO. You keep bringing that up and don’t realize how bad that makes you look. MTV is a joke. It has no bearing on reality.
Hammerin' Hank
Padres easily won the Darvish trade. They gave up very little value for a great pitcher.
Deleted_User
I think the disconnect is Jed was under an ownership mandate to cut salary and doesn’t think Darvish can sustain what he did in 2020. It is true that one year ago the Cubs were mad that Darvish didn’t opt out of his contract.
cubsnomore
You can’t extrapolate the Cubs record to a full season. Truth is they had a good 3 week start to the season. The rest of the season they were a .500 percentage team. Had it been a full 162 games they would have finished 3rd.
Tim Dierkes
Why would they be incapable of another good three-week stretch?
Hank Murphy
Thanks for bringing up the Dickey trade, why don’t you give Blue Jays fans a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it while you’re at it.
kodion
Gets more painful the farther we get from it but it wasn’t all bad.
The Jays sure could use an 800 innings/4 years guy in the middle of their rotation now
Loling @ you
I think darvish and bauer will be exposed this year. They both benefited from playing some of the worst offenses in league, that won’t be the case this year. I think that’s part of Cubs logic is selling high on darvish if he regresses back to his recent stats the trades looks way better for Cubs as they are offloading almost all of darvishs bloated deal. Wait and see but my money is on darvish going back to a 4 era
Luc 2
Bauer I see high 3.75-4.00. Darvish has talent but its health for me. If he stays healthy I think he can be pretty good
Loling @ you
I think snell will be much better in nl than his time with rays. I think darvish gets launched especially against dodgers who probably know his tendencies better than anyone. Think a 3.95-4.1 era for darvish with an ops + of 104
Hammerin' Hank
Darvish and Bauer will be just fine this year as long as they stay healthy. They’re both going to pitchers parks and 3 of the NL West teams have average or worse offenses. Bauer will have a great team behind him and should excel. And the Cubs did not sell high. They got nothing significant back for one of the best starters in the game, who also has a reasonable contract.
Pads Fans
NL West has 3 of the top 5 offenses in the NL last year. The Central was weakest division in baseball.
Franco27
Dervish is being overvalued based on a 60 game season where many hitters struggled. Look at his overall career history. Good numbers, but not elite numbers. His history shows that he struggles with consistency and injuries. He is in his mid 30’s. The cubs weren’t going to the WS with him this year.
They reduced payroll and created financial flexibility for the future. They got a very capable starting pitcher who is 7 years younger, and 4 very young high upside players. Nobody knows how the young players will develop, maybe a couple become top 100 prospects, too early to tell. Maybe Darvish fails. It took him a year and a half to pitch well for the Cubs.
For Love of the Game
Darvish was great in the early years, but has been only “good” for the past several years other than last year’s mini-season.
Mikel Grady
Savor
Loling @ you
@darvo you are 1000 percent correct. I think darvish and bauer get launched this season
For Love of the Game
The Cubs remind me of my Tigers in 2015-2016. Big payroll for an aging .500 team. You could see which way that was heading, but the Tigers had to keep trying to win a title for now-deceased owner Mike Illitch.
northsidecrossrifles
Except after this season, they only have about 60 mil on the books for 2022, and that’s including arb raises and pre arb salaries. They have the financial might to flex in what could be the best FA class ever, as well as the money from creating their TV network should finally start to kick in seeing as we’d be another year used to adjusting to the COVID variables influencing the market
Pads Fans
The Cubs will also have to replace 1B, SS, and 3B as well as 2 starting pitchers and a closer.
Will be interesting to see who they extend and what they do in FA for 2022. They are certainly a big revenue club, so they can afford to go after any player they want.
northsidecrossrifles
@Pads Fans very true! Though I’m more bullish than some on Abbott, Alozay, and Marquez taking one of those rotation spots. Still, another quality SP, and losing 3 core players isn’t an easy task to replace in one offseason. That’s why I’m grateful for the payroll flexibility that was gained this offseason. It hurts to lose Yu, but the reality of the cubs doing damage in the playoffs (if they even make it there) was suspect at best, and that was with Darvish. Their roster has talent, but its too flawed the way its currently constructed to have any realistic hope of making it past the dodgers and padres. Even the braves and mets appear to be clearly better than the cubs, and i think you would have to give the cards the edge as well, while there’s another 4 teams in a similiar tier as the cubs.
A lot of cubs fans just haven’t wanted to accept the reality that outside of adding a Bauer and another high quality player, the team isn’t in the same stratosphere as the current cream of the crop in the NL. These one yr deals allow them to compete, test out some new strategies Hoyer seems to want to implement, while getting what they could for a talented, yet aging and somewhat flawed starter. I can understand why some fans wanted more of a return, as well as the people who suggested Hoyer wait until the deadline to see if someone would overpay, but history has taught us its usually better to sell a starter a year too early vs too late. 4 teenagers doesn’t knock your sox off, but I’ve been a fan of Preciado since he was signed out of Panama, and I’m glad Jed actually went for some toolsy players in Cassie and Mena. Santana seems to be more of the Theo’s style; higher floor, lower ceiling up the middle type who they hope has a growth spurt or develops a plus hit tool. Plus Davies is certainly a solid starter. Since he doesn’t light up a radar gun, people seem to think he’s terrible. I’d be interested in hearing your take on them. The padres should be even more fun to watch this year, and I’m pulling for you guys!
Phantom X
In hindsight the cubs trading him was a smart idea. He is injury prone. I think the Padres were also smart in not giving up good prospects for him. But if a lot of people are going to look at the Bauer signing as a God send to the Dodgers, then I screw it, the Padres got an ace pitcher and the Cubs got gipped big time.
ClevelandSpidersFromMars
No need to resort to ethnic slurs.
Erik
All these fools are basing this on a 60 game season. Throw out the CY Young Awards and projected numbers. Not saying the Darvish trade wasn’t bad but it’s not like the Cubs aren’t saving something. They got 4 young unknown lottery tickets in the deal. They could’ve did better on that trade for sure but the outcome still could be surprising
Dunk Dunkington
People are acting like Darvish is a sure thing TOR arm you can relay on. He is 34 years old with 3 years $59 million on his contract remaining with past injuries and ineffectiveness issues. Before the 2nd half of 2019 Darvish contract was in the gutter and close to be dead money and it rebounded which is really rare to happen and Hoyer decided to not bet on him anymore and cashed out while he could and did which I cannot blame him for that and Padres are taking some serious risk themselves.
Could the Cubs done better in this trade, yes they could but I just don’t think they did not want to bet that a better offer will come to the table. The 4 guys they got after Davies are not chumps, they got a upside and could help out in a few years.
iml12
The fact of the matter is the when the cubs signed the contract they probably knew the last 1-2 years would be under water. Darvish struggled early with cubs and bounced back nicely. Hoyer saw an opportunity to get out from the contract and took it. I personally think Darvish will have an excellent season next year but I think Davies will pitch well too. Hoyer is definitely trimming players and contracts he might not of viewed as highly as Theo. He has a clean slate to extend or trade anyone he wants in the next couple years. Outside of Hendricks, bote and Heyward the cubs have zero long term financial commitments. The only thing I don’t want to see is a full gut rebuild.
paindonthurt
@iml12. That is fair to say they knew the tail end of the contract was potentially bad. All the more reason to deal him when you don’t feel the team is World Series caliber. You got 4 potential long term pieces and an arm that helps now. All while eliminating that contract.
Anthony S.
I’ve always felt teams overvalue players, especially recently. Darvish may have a stellar K/9 (one of the best, if not the best in the sport), but he struggles to pitch a full season. Same with Trevor Bauer. He has one great, Cy Young season and now he’s making $40 million? I don’t think so. These teams need to pay for consistent, sustained success, not for catching lightning in a bottle for a season.
TLB2001
Random off season Cy Young application trivia.
1990 Royals are I believe the only team to have both defending Cy Young’s on the same team. Bret Saberhagen won the 89 CY and then the Royals signed NL Cy Young winner Mark Davis in the offseason.
Weirdo who butchers names
磣
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
Just curious to get an opinion
Is the cubs trading of Lou Brock still the worst trade in franchise history? Or would Yu take the cake on this one? Both traded for pennies on the dollar.
I don’t think Yu will be a HIF. It’s still a horrible trade
Probably top 5 worst imo
Lou Brock
DJ LeMahieu (also traded for pennies)
Eloy Jimenez
Yu
Dennis Eckersley/Jamie Moyer and Rafael Palmeiro
Those would be my top 5 worst Cubs trades.
They traded 3 HOFers
paindonthurt
How in the hell can you even make that comparison. It will be five years + before you can close the deal on this trade. This is ridiculous. Let it play out.
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
4 18yr Olds and and a back up to the spot starter. Is pretty bad.
northsidecrossrifles
dude Davies has a 3.3 ERA over his last 220 IP and has been a solid starter with an ERA under 4 in 5/6 seasons. He’s no Darvish, but he’s a solid rotation piece. As far as 18 yr olds go, each has a high ceiling with 2 of them ultra high ceilings. This return is certainly risky, and could blow up in our faces. But I’m actually happy they’re finally taking some risks on prospects instead of “projectable” college arms. Calling this the worst trade ever before Darvish has thrown a pitch, or these prospects have even been at our minor leage camp is a stretch of massive proportions.
Remember, Lou Brock was considered a raw youngster at the time of that deal, and Ernie Broglio was considered a potential ace and the piece the cubs were missing after 30-17 record with a 2.99 ERA over the previous two years. If we judged that trade the day it was made, we’d be saying similiar things as people are now regarding the Darvish deal
paindonthurt
You don’t know what those 4 players will be. Nor, do you know what Darvish and Davies will give you this year. It’s about freeing up the long term financial commitment. You can’t even say Darvish makes you better in 21’ than Davies at this point. Knee jerk reactions are for knee jerkers.
JoeBrady
wrek305
4 18yr Olds and and a back up to the spot starter.
===============================================================
Probably best to stop when you are impossibly behind. You have exactly -0- basis for saying the Darvish trade is a bad trade.
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
It’s an obvious bad trade. Otherwise you get at least 2 ML players back him. And they needed pitching but got 4 position players. Something they’re stacked at in their farm. Especially SS. Why trade your best pitcher for only 1 pitched. I get that it was a salary dump but most AAA players don’t make over a million dollars a season. So why not drop 60 mil for 5 mil.
What makes it even worse is the cubs save 60 mil but then refuse to try to sign someone like Michael Brantley or JBJ
Instead they stay extremely cheap and get joc pederson. (Who doesn’t even spell his name right)
It wasn’t all bad. Victor Caratini gets to start 4 days a week. He’s finally a starting catcher.
northsidecrossrifles
Not sure the Victory Carrot will start. It appears they will deploy their catchers depending on the matchups, which is smart.
I mean it could very well go down as a horrible trade. It also could look shrewd. Closing the book on analyzing the trade at this point of time doesn’t make a lot of sense. The return was certainly risky. Though Darvish himself comes with a lot of risk. Sadly for us as cubs fans, that’s what the market determined the cubs could get. Its not like we can reasonably assume Hoyer took a verifiably weaker package when another was on the table.
I was a huge Darvish fan (still am) and kept perspective during his first 2 years where everybody rode him off as a failure while telling people a massive rebound is coming (and got a lot of flak for it). But Darvish is an immensely talented guy who comes with a fair amount of question marks. His contract was under water at this time last season. We can criticize the return (and should in a certain light), but remember what happens when teams wait to trade a SP a yr too late. Holding onto him compounds that risk.
I wouldn’t worry about having too many low level SS prospects. Its the most valuable position on the diamond. Your best athletes usually play SS. These guys can be moved off of the position and turn into quality starters elsewhere, while also maximizing trade value if they stick at short. Its a could problem to have. Were not talking about 5 quality 1B prospects. Plus we know there will be attrition rate.
dugmet
Solid article. Worth reading. Thank you.
paindonthurt
Good article indeed.
JrodFunk5
The entire premise of this article is irrelevant due to the season being only 60 games. I’m sure teams who had two winning months have traded a pitcher who has two great months the following offseason.
Tim Dierkes
But a 60-game season is what we have, and there is no reason to suggest the Cubs were a two-month fluke that wouldn’t have been expected to contend in 2021. The premise stands: make the playoffs, trade a top-2 Cy pitcher immediately after. This is something that, in the past 20 years, only the Cubs have done.
Travis’ Wood
Also Darvish has been lights out since the all star break in 2019 so it’s more than just 2 months
northsidecrossrifles
Tim, I appreciate your work and your articles are always interesting reads. However, in this particular situation you’ve conflated the 2012 trade market with the 2021 trade market, as well as a Dickey vs Darvish comparison. These are different markets, with different variables influencing them. Dickey and Darvish are also completely different pitchers with scouting reports and injury histories having a drastic variance, with different contracts, in a different trade market. Though I enjoyed your article and found the comparison of 2 CY Young contenders traded immediately after having great seasons an interesting read, the one for one comparison in this scenario isn’t nearly as applicable as it may appear. Furthermore, using Kershaw as some expert testimomy isn’t exactly the person we should be hearing from if we want an in depth assessment of the current market that clealry influenced the cub’s decision, as well as someone with direct knowledge of the current financial assessments that largely influence the game as a whole. It would have been better served to have some GMs or OPS VP’s shed some light on this. Anyways, I rambled too long and thank you for all of your time and effort!
Tim Dierkes
I didn’t conflate them. I understand two offseasons nine years apart aren’t the same. I compared them.
northsidecrossrifles
@ Tim Dierkes I guess were getting into a semantical disagreement. I think the assessment runs much closer to conflation in certain areas, seeing as the selective quotes by Alderson in relation to the 2012 market, and all you have for 2021 is player quotes from Kershaw. You’re painting a desired narrative without providing greater context for a reader to make a more informed decision. When assessing a trade and the variables that dictated said trade, the current market that dictates the return should be broken down. Though Kershaw is a HOFer and great person to breakdown aspects of pitching (among other topics), he is in no way an expert on the current market FOs are operating in, as well as privy to ownership mandates, trade negotiations between FOs, as well as many other variables that influence a return on an asset as well as why a team may move that asset. If quotes are being used to compare these trades, FO personnel assessments would be more applicable than players in this context. Maybe your intent wasn’t to provide market comparisons, and that’s fair. I understand you’re a busy guy, and I appreciate your work nonetheless, as well as you taking the time to respond.
Mjshof
Making the playoffs is a red herring. It’s the big picture that matters.
A global pandemic that has never been ‘done before’ shortens the season and craters revenue for all teams. Cubs affected further due to lack of revenue from real estate and business investments immediately near the stadium. Pressure on reducing costs And risks.
Darvish was untradeable just a short time ago. He now improves to a point where he is tradable. He still has the injury history, age and uneven performance defining who he is. No guarantees the good games recently continue for all or part of the next 3 year.
Cubs can’t compete with SD, Atlanta and especially LAD. Maybe win a playoff series from one, but extremely unlikely to beat more than one of them.
No matter what happens in 2021 Cubs expect to lose 2 or 3 FA and pay handsomely to retain any who stay.
All of this points to a retooling (minimum) and getting rid of a risky asset to diversify is sensible even just won a weak division title.
Mjshof
Tim your comment here says that everyone should accept the 2020 version of the Cubs as legit.
You describe in the article that the Cubs projected 162 game result is 92 wins.
The Dodgers projected 162 game result is 116 wins. Logically you believe that is true. The Dodgers would then be the best regular season team in history.
You’re a logical guy and an honest journalist. Why aren’t you and the MLBTR Team and especially the entire Baseball Journalism World shouting this accomplishment from the rooftops.
Maybe I missed the stories, but you’d think this would be rehashed as we go into the 2021 season. Especially when the team is almost entirely intact and added the best TOR arm in FA. It would be fair to speculate that they could win 120 now.
Everyone knows why this isn’t happening- Small Sample Size.
Tim Dierkes
No, the idea is to assess whether the team played at a 92-win level and could do something similar the following year, which was the case with the Cubs. They had a bunch of key players play terribly and still played at a 92-win pace for 37% of a season. I never said the Cubs’ 34-win season WAS a 92-win season. I said it extrapolated to that, which is factual. You’re conflating an extrapolation with actually doing it over 162.
Mjshof
lol Tim. Now your ‘extrapolation’ is ‘factual’ and my ‘projected’ is ‘conflated as actually doing it’.
You have to take a stance and own it – either the 60 game season’s results can be used as a valid to predict future performance over a 162 game season or not.
You desperately want the 60 game season to predict future Cubs success on the order of 90+ wins and a playoff birth.
Others – myself included doubt the premise that 60 games are that predictive and also don’t think of the Cubs as probable for a 90+ win season.
Either opinion is OK – it’s certainly a discussion
My point was that each part act consistently and that if YOU say 60 Cub games ‘extrapolate’ to to 92-wins then the same 60 games for the Dodgers ‘extrapolate’ to 116-wins.
I then inferred and will now explicitly state that you can’t believe that the Dodgers ‘extrapolation’ other wise it would be a huge story and since neither you nor anyone else I’m aware of is touting that then it’s pretty clear no one believes it based on 60 game season.
OK to be a Cubs Fanboi just own it.
JoeBrady
Trading Darvish does not preclude the Cubs from competing. The downgrade from Darvish to Davies is not nearly as bad as some might want to think it is.
Deleted_User
@JoeBrady I’m getting a sense that the Cubs agree with that statement. I don’t, but it would go a long way in explaining why they haven’t traded Bryant, Rizzo, Baez and Contreras and why they wanted Davies in the Darvish trade.
FWIW they have a pretty easy path to at least 2nd place in that division.
paddyo furnichuh
Kris…Your comment is about as relevant as your handle. That name works if you’re going to a 1970s costume party.
bbatardo
It’s the type of trade we’ll probably reflect back on in about 3 years to see how each team did. It could just as easily be a win-win for both teams as either of the teams winning the trade.
Anthony S.
Excellent insight and comparison! The Cubs are in a tough spot. They spent too much money on big contracts while simultaneously not developing homegrown pitching. If the ownership really wanted to compete and spend, they could bite the bullet. Sad state of affairs.
Catuli Carl
They tried to develop homegrown pitching. They just suck at it. They drafted like 100 pitchers over the course of a decade and not one ever made it as a starter.
OppoPower
Trading a 34 year old pitcher who has missed starts in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018 with arm problems and only managed to string together two separate HALF seasons of excellent pitching, the Cubs were selling as high as they could. I bet that Darvish won’t pitch that good again for an entire season.
Mjshof
Better to cut ties a year too early rather than a year too late
its_happening
Funny part about the Dickey trade is the Jays probably make the postseason without that move in 2015 and 2016. Who knows if they acquire Navarro or Martin and what moves would have been made if not for the deal.
Jays were confident enough in Arencibia to deal D’arnaud and declare Yan Gomes expendable as they did not see him as a future catcher. Another move that makes you wonder what they saw and did not see when it came to the organization’s catching situation at the time.
babybears
Trading Darvish for Davies and young prospects is fine to me because it frees up money for other signings in the near future. Lose Davies, Kimbrel, Baez. Bryant, Rizzo, Arrieta, after 2021. While still competing in 21. Payroll will be way down for the FA class in 21. Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Angels, Dodgers, Padres, Cardinals will not have near the financial flexibility as the Cubs will have in 21. Cubs will have close to 110 million to play with.
The prospect return helps with this too. The young guys they got are in their top 30 and have made it a deeper pool in future trade situations.
Is Darvish going to win the Cubs a world series? He hadn’t thd previous 3 years
Catuli Carl
Thank you for making me feel better.
Pads Fans
You don’t think the Cubs will extend any of those 6 players?
northsidecrossrifles
They will probably make a run at extending Rizzo before the season starts, and potentially Baez at some point if he doesn’t want to test the insanely deep SS field. The other 4 its less likely, though maybe they develop an interest (potentially a mutual one) in Davies. If arb raises and pre arb salaries are factored in, they have only 60 mil on their books for 2022.
The 2022 FA class will be interesting, seeing as if all potential FAs hit the open market (excluding the guys with team friendly options like Jose Ramirez), this class will go down as the deepest ever. Obviously that is unrealiatic and wishful thinking at best. This deep class could influence more guys to sign extensions before hitting the open market, seeing as with the quantity of quality players available, it might cause wages to be somewhat depressed and values (at least in relation to what some players would have earned in a weaker FA class) may arise. The big market teams could take more of an advantage of this style of market, though all teams may be able to get decent values if the majority of these guys reach free agency. Only time will tell, so it might make sense for the cubs to hedge their bets now of they think they’re getting good value.
Deleted_User
@babybears Darvish and Hendricks basically carried the team in 2020
babybears
The Trade for Darvish will be good for both the Cubs and Pads. I think it is better for the Cubs because they now have the option to extend guys if they want.
laswagn
Let’s be honest, Kershaw, not Dickey should’ve won the 2012 Cy Young.
Deleted_User
Stats were almost identical but Dickey was the better story
Catuli Carl
Why you gotta rub it in like that?
YourDreamGM
Everybody go check out mlb trade values. I intern for them and they said they will give me a gift card if I spam advertise for them 100 times.
JoeBrady
It won’t make that much difference. Darvish is obviously better, but the $13M+ can theoretically be spent to buy the WAR difference between Barvish and Davies. The Cubs could pocket the money, but that $13M will get you a pretty good player.
ChiSoxCity
Cubbies gotta Cub. It’s just what they do. They’ll trade Bryant at some (late) point, and get nothing for him. Probably do the same with Baez.
They’re not known for making shrewd trades… always looking for bargains or rent-a-wrecks in the salvage yard. It’s disgraceful and embarrassing that a franchise can get away with this type of behavior for so long in a city the size of Chicago.
paddyo furnichuh
Interesting article! I very much appreciated the comparison of the Dickey and Darvish trades. The Mets made a great move that year as it was not too hard to see that Dickey was primed for regression. The Cubs? I doubt this will go down as a shrewd move in 5 years. Maybe it seems worse that Tom Ricketts is Cruz’s doppelgänger.
MrMet33
I think it’s also an interesting note that the Mets has preferred prospect Aaron Sanchez as they had thought he was closer to contributing however the Blue Jays opted to give up Syndergaard instead.
If the Mets were to sign Aaron Sanchez, they would have him, Syndergaard and Stroman.
BA top 10 #BlueJays 2013:
1. Travis d’Arnaud, c*
2. Jake Marisnick, of*
3. Noah Syndergaard, , P*
4. Aaron Sanchez, P
5. Justin Nicolino, P
6. Roberto Osuna, P
7. Marcus Stroman, P*
8. Adeiny Hechavarria, ss*
9. D.J. Davis, of
10. John Stilson, P
*played for Mets
northsidecrossrifles
interesting insight!
wtylerw
missing some key facts: Theo is gone, Hoyer loves prospects, hes at the helm and he cant wait to break up this cubs team to bring in a bunch of guys who will never make it, and trade away ones who will.
as a padres lifer, thank you for leaving hoyer, and i hope Darvish brings us a real championship (not a 60 game one)
Orel Saxhiser
It was a real season, more so than most seasons considering the circumstances. It’s not MLB’s fault that the White House totally botched our response to the pandemic. Major League Baseball did the best they could with the hand it was dealt.
As for you being a Padres lifer, ouch. One World Series game won in 52 years.
wtylerw
i dont think anyone who follows baseball can say it was a “real” season. its like calling a 4 month old baby a year old, a lot happens in that 100 games that were skipped, especially when it comes to depth, when it comes to young guys breaking out, and ultimately winning it all. as a perfect example look at the 2019 world champs, where were the nationals 60 games into the season. its not a baseball season.
following baseball isnt always about winning one (or four games) – its about 162+
paddyo furnichuh
Wtylerw…Regarding the 162 game season…isn’t that what a fan of Maria may have claimed? Maybe your gramps was the one arguing for the older schedule. Life is about adaptation and growth-you may do well to accept it.
Ahem, the Nats lost one of the premiere hitters in baseball, Anthony Rendon . They also did not have Strasbourg at his 2019 output. that obvious reality in your argument against the validity of last season makes you seem small minded.
Arguing against the validity of the 2020 season is a very weak argument.
But maybe you’re still bitter about Tippecanoe
paddyo furnichuh
Not Maria…Maris*
Dumpster Divin Theo
Maris. You just met a girl named Maris?
wtylerw
honestly not sure what youre trying to say, accept the adaption and growth of 60 game baseball seasons due to new viruses? are you supporting canceling baseball because people get sick?
the nats were ~25-35 after 60 games of 2019, the point is valid: you dont know a team or a season at the 60 game mark.
1984wasntamanual
Yeah, stupid White House, listening to Fauci! They should have known better and listened to Cey Hey
fondlyremembering2016
I’ve been wondering out loud for a while now that I think Hoyer made this trade knowing the Cubs can’t beat the Dodgers in 2021 and wholeheartedly thinks a player work stoppage is gonna wipe out 2022. Hence a package of teenagers thinking that the plan is for 2023 and beyond
Dumpster Divin Theo
Quiet. You’re gonna wake the neighbors. Inside voice plz
Dumpster Divin Theo
But but.. the Cubs are smart for dumping Yu when they can. Whew they dodged a bullet finding a sucker to take his contract. And so many top young prospects. This is how you rebuild! /s
bykoric
The last sentence, “aren’t really pushing for the title.” That right there is the *BIG* problem in MLB. You have a flagship team in a major market (Chicago) not trying to win it all. And the fact that MLB has *two* teams of that caliber (Cubs & Red Sox) not trying to contend. That’s deplorable. Either of those teams could pay the luxury tax penalty from the gate receipts collected from hosting the Fall Classic.
Meanwhile the Dodgers are acting like a major market team should: [forget] the tax… let’s win another one!
JoeBrady
bykoric
MLB has *two* teams of that caliber (Cubs & Red Sox) not trying to contend.
=========================================================================
ROTFLMAO!!!!
The RS have the second highest 40-man payroll in BB.
drasco036
Just out of curiosity, where was Tatis ranked in the top 100 when the White Sox traded him to the Padres?
That’s right, he wasn’t. He was the 30th ranked international prospect. In 2016, he didn’t even rank on the Padres top 30 list.
I guess my point is, these experts who say the Cubs failed miserably are the same experts who dropped the ball on Tatis and countless other kids who developed into stars.
Count me as one of the guys who were upset when Dempster used his NTC to void a trade to Atlanta for Delgado and we “settled” for a deal with the Rangers which netted us a no where near top 100 prospect in Kyle Hendricks… but we got Christian Villianueva in the deal, he was a top 100.
Forget 5 years down the road, come back and address this trade in 2-3 years after these kids have had a chance to play. Maybe they will all be busts, but maybe there is some serious talent on board. These kids certainly got paid at 16 like they have some seriously bright futures ahead of them.
Cub Fan Bob
Dodgers just signed a pitcher to $40 mil a year, highest salary ever for a mlb player, who baseball reference’s similar comps are Chris Young and Mike Fiers. So stfu, if course Darvish was traded to the Dodgers, as opposed to his rival, this guy would be praising the deal.
ChiSoxCity
You should maybe try watching a baseball game sometime. Preferably one where Bauer is pitching.
babybears
Is he worth 40 plus Million a year?
ChiSoxCity
Nobody is. But saying Bauer is comparable to Chris Young and Mike Fiers at this point is ludicrous.
Mikel Grady
Darvish really impressed today . Cubs Fleeced Padres. Boo birds got in his fragile brain . Davies will be better .