2019 Trade Deadline Thread:

[nsacpi]

Trading our best pitching prospect for a reliever seems like a terrible waste of assets. Why not just trade Wentz and fodder for Giles?

I view Vazquez as an elite high-leverage reliever with an established track record. He has a record of consistency over five years. He is still young. He has a highly favorable contract. He is a lefty.

I like Giles too. But he is not as consistent. I would do Giles for Wentz in a New York minute. But when looking at the deal for Brad Hand at the last deadline, it seems to me Giles will command more than that.

Unless you are dealing with a front office that doesn't know what it's doing, you need to be realistic about these trades.

 

[nsacpi]

Trading Wright and Anderson in separate deals that only bring back one year of back end starting pitching control seems like a poor decision.

Wright's value is generally overrated around here. His chances of making it as starting pitcher were never that high in my opinion and I'm guessing the industry consensus is trending in that direction.

Parting with Anderson hurts much more. But I rate Vazquez, and I suspect the industry does too.

Btw, I'm ok with a minimalist deadline where we trade for say Diekman and call it a day. Above all I'm about value. You can have a successful deadline trading season that is minimalist and you can have a successful one where you make some big trades. The Stroman and Vazquez deals that I outlined would obviously are more in the blockbuster category. Imo, they are fair value deals that help us a lot this year and next while preserving a long window of contention. We would still have a long list of pitchers to build a future staff around: Soroka, Fried, Wilson, Muller, Weigel, Ynoa, Vodnik, de la Cruz.

 

[Southcack77]

Wright's value is generally overrated around here. His chances of making it as starting pitcher were never that high in my opinion and I'm guessing the industry consensus is trending in that direction.

Parting with Anderson hurts much more. But I rate Vazquez, and I suspect the industry does too.

I think that's a personal feeling that you are imputing to "industry consensus" with no evidence to support it. But, if you got some evidence to support it, let's hear it.

 

[nsacpi]

I think that's a personal feeling that you are imputing to "industry consensus" with no evidence to support it. But, if you got some evidence to support it, let's hear it.

I don't talk to major league front offices. But people who put the Top 100 lists for BA, FG and others do. Wright has dropped on most of those lists since the end of 2018. He's probably dropped more if the lists were updated since his start against the gnats.

 

[Hudson2]

I like Vazquez a lot but no way I trade that package for him. For a stud starter yes.

 

[Carp]

I view Vazquez as an elite high-leverage reliever with an established track record. He has a record of consistency over five years. He is still young. He has a highly favorable contract. He is a lefty.

I like Giles too. But he is not as consistent. I would do Giles for Wentz in a New York minute. But when looking at the deal for Brad Hand at the last deadline, it seems to me Giles will command more than that.

Unless you are dealing with a front office that doesn't know what it's doing, you need to be realistic about these trades.

I was thinking Giles was a rental for some reason. So yeah, unless they'd take two or three 45 FV guys, I wouldn't give up much for him either.

So replace Giles with any other rental reliever with high leverage qualifications (i.e. Smith, Watson, Chris Martin, Diekman, Holland). Much rather give up Wentz and fodder for one of those guys than trade Anderson for a reliever. And as previously stated, trading Wright and Anderson this summer and only receiving back 1 MOR pitcher with 1.5 years remaining is an extremely poor use of resources, imo. If we're getting a starter, it needs to be either Minor, Wheeler, or MadBum (assuming the last two are even traded) as the cost for them should be substantially lower.

 

[nsacpi]

For a contending team, Vazquez is a very valuable asset. It doesn't look like the Pirates are eager to move him, but they would get a haul for him.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

Valuing a pitcher based on game to game results seems folly.

 

[Carp]

Wright's value is generally overrated around here. His chances of making it as starting pitcher were never that high in my opinion and I'm guessing the industry consensus is trending in that direction.

Parting with Anderson hurts much more. But I rate Vazquez, and I suspect the industry does too.

Btw, I'm ok with a minimalist deadline where we trade for say Diekman and call it a day. Above all I'm about value. You can have a successful deadline trading season that is minimalist and you can have a successful one where you make some big trades. The Stroman and Vazquez deals that I outlined would obviously are more in the blockbuster category. Imo, they are fair value deals that help us a lot this year and next while preserving a long window of contention. We would still have a long list of pitchers to build a future staff around: Soroka, Fried, Wilson, Muller, Weigel, Ynoa, Vodnik, de la Cruz.

I'm not necessarily against the Wright trade. I have been down on him for about a year now, so I can imagine his value has taken a hit too. The issue is more that Wright and Anderson could conceivably be considered our best 2 pitching prospects (I have him as 3rd or 4th, right in line with Muller), and trading both of them while only getting back 1.5 years of control of another starting pitcher and a reliever that will pitch 60 innings a year simply isn't a very good use of assets.

 

[Carp]

For a contending team, Vazquez is a very valuable asset. It doesn't look like the Pirates are eager to move him, but they would get a haul for him.

I'm sure they would, but it shouldn't be from us. The difference between him and some of the other relievers available isn't significant enough to warrant the extra cost, imo.

 

[nsacpi]

I'm sure they would, but it shouldn't be from us. The difference between him and some of the other relievers available isn't significant enough to warrant the extra cost, imo.

No other available reliever is going to come close to matching the combination of performance and contract that comes with Vazquez. It is a unique combination that would be priced accordingly. Part of the attraction is that two of the years of contractual control come via options, which limits the downside risk in the event of injury. A smart front office will understand the value inherent in that.

 

[rico43]

Think very soon we'll find that Tristan Beck and Tucker Davidson have been creeping up the prospect rankings. Davidson may be climbing with a bullet.

 

[Enscheff]

KC being unwilling to eat cash to sell high on Kennedy is precisely what makes them a bottom tier FO. They should be converting all present resources into future wins, and that includes present day cash. This may be their only chance to turn an albatross contract into non-zero future value, and they are poised to blow that chance.

They are trying to build a team around a 30 year old position prospect...they are terrible.

 

[Enscheff]

For a contending team, Vazquez is a very valuable asset. It doesn't look like the Pirates are eager to move him, but they would get a haul for him.

The Pirates are probably locked into trying to be a 2020 contender. I don’t think they will trade Vazquez.

 

[nsacpi]

KC being unwilling to eat cash to sell high on Kennedy is precisely what makes them a bottom tier FO. They should be converting all present resources into future wins, and that includes present day cash. This may be their only chance to turn an albatross contract into non-zero future value, and they are poised to blow that chance.

They are trying to build a team around a 30 year old position prospect...they are terrible.

Could be posturing. Just like the Blue Jays and Mets are probably posturing by raising the possibility of extenting Stroman and Wheeler.

 

[CJ9]

Here's Longenhagen's answer to Ian Anderson's results despite the low spin rate on the curveball:

"It's spin efficient. He has an over the top slot so all that tumble is occurring straight down and the pitch has workable movement despite lackluster raw spin. Same for MacKenzie Gore."

 

[Carp]

No other available reliever is going to come close to matching the combination of performance and contract that comes with Vazquez. It is a unique combination that would be priced accordingly. Part of the attraction is that two of the years of contractual control come via options, which limits the downside risk in the event of injury. A smart front office will understand the value inherent in that.

I really don't think control of a reliever is all that valuable considering their volatility. Much rather spend funds and sign one in the winter on a 2-3 year deal, or even better, convert one of our failed starters to a high leverage reliever.

 

[Hudson2]

Here's Longenhagen's answer to Ian Anderson's results despite the low spin rate on the curveball:

"It's spin efficient. He has an over the top slot so all that tumble is occurring straight down and the pitch has workable movement despite lackluster raw spin. Same for MacKenzie Gore."

So Gore has a low spin rate too. It’ll be really interesting to see what Anderson’s data is when he gets to the show.

 

[striker42]

KC being unwilling to eat cash to sell high on Kennedy is precisely what makes them a bottom tier FO. They should be converting all present resources into future wins, and that includes present day cash. This may be their only chance to turn an albatross contract into non-zero future value, and they are poised to blow that chance.

They are trying to build a team around a 30 year old position prospect...they are terrible.

If they're not willing to eat money on Kennedy my bet is it's because of an order from ownership. The owners of that team are terrible.

 

[Hudson2]

Question for the board. Does Thor get traded by the deadline?