2017-18 Off-season Trade/Free Agent Speculation

[Dirk41]

Who could they trade for?

Would love Stroman or Archer, but can't imagine that happening.

[zambonir]

Ya just never know. Could be a big list in July.

This article in contrast to the Middleton article. "I talk to Scott," Attanasio says.

Kris Bryant explains how Jake Arrieta could transform a team...

[Austinfan]

Why didn't the Cubs resigned Arrieta?
They have the money, they know the player intimately, they needed pitching.
That shouts damaged goods, the same way the Dodgers allowed Grienke to walk.

[andyb]

Why didn't the Cubs resigned Arrieta?
They have the money, they know the player intimately, they needed pitching.
That shouts damaged goods, the same way the Dodgers allowed Grienke to walk.

Or they simply decided to sign the younger and better pitcher in Darvish when Darvish's price dropped to what was likely less than Arrieta was asking for. There is a lot more evidence of that than your damaged goods supposition.

[allentown]

Arrieta did seem a far lesser choice than Darvish, but part of that is because the stats do show him to be in rather serious decline. The Cubs wisely signed the best pitcher on the FA market and the one who came with the happy bonus of not requiring comp. They were able to add Darvish for just money and now will get comp for Arrieta. Smart! I just wish the Phillies were as wise. Whether he is literally 'damaged goods', as in pitching through arm woes, or simply showing age-related decline, there are some red flags flying over Arrieta.

[Austinfan]

Younger?
Darvish 8/16/86
Arrieta 3/6/86
Boy, those five months were obviously the deal maker.

And Arrieta has a better track record.
Arrieta 19.3 WAR the last four seasons
Darvish 19.3 WAR over five seasons plus missed a year

So by going for Darvish over Arrieta they're signaling something is wrong with Arrieta.

[andyb]

Arrieta 19.3 WAR the last four seasons
Darvish 19.3 WAR over five seasons plus missed a year

So by going for Darvish over Arrieta they're signaling something is wrong with Arrieta.

Not at all. Darvish is a bit younger. And his recent performance is better (he basically missed 2 years because of TJ - 1 full year and 2 more half years). So Darvish on average produced more WAR per start than Arrieta while also not declining in the last 2 years.

You are just cherry picking minor points and ignoring the big picture that Darvish has been better most recently. And while you say "damaged goods", there is not much evidence of actual injury with Arrieta other than a hamstring last year which he came back from fine and pitched well in the playoffs. There is no question in my mind that Darvish is better than Arrieta and we actually can't answer the injury question that well. They don't have to be signaling something ominously is wrong with Arrieta by picking Darvish when his price came down. They also seemed very prepared to go with Arrieta if Darvish fell through. They never had the money for both.

[phillychuck]

Andy, do you put much credence in the reported loss of fastball velocity by Arrieta? Fangraphs has him dropping 0.7 MPH in a year where the guns generally registered faster speeds, meaning he probably had over a 1 MPH drop. Could the Cubs be worried about that?

[andyb]

Andy, do you put much credence in the reported loss of fastball velocity by Arrieta? Fangraphs has him dropping 0.7 MPH in a year where the guns generally registered faster speeds, meaning he probably had over a 1 MPH drop. Could the Cubs be worried about that?

Certainly they could. That is very different than damaged goods though. It could simply be getting older and him settling into a pattern of regularly throwing 92 rather than 94 and it also does not guarantee the velocity will continue to drop.

The Cubs certainly know his medical info better than anyone else. While we will never know if they were blowing smoke about being prepared to sign him, we know they did say to the press that they might. We also know that Arrieta's agent is asking for more money than he is likely worth. These are things we know. We don't know if he is damaged in the same way that we DO know that Darvish has been better recently.

PC - see the Heyman article for some of the back and forth. Why would the Cubs check to see if Arreita would accept the deal Darvish got if they thought he was damaged goods. He wanted more than that. On my end I only want Arrieta if he accepts less than that too. Whether his price comes down and he accepts a deal is a very open question now.

Inside Baseball | Picking Jake Arrieta’s new team

[Austinfan]

"The Dodgers offered close to $100 million over six years for Darvish"

Sure sounds like they think he's going to hold up!

The track record for big money for over 30 pitchers is pretty dismal, Arrieta is 32 to start the season, Darvish turn 32 in August.

The funniest part is Boras trying to say prestige and intangibles are more important than analytics - sounds like a guy who can read the handwriting on the wall - the days of overpays for "names" are over for most teams.

[allentown]

Certainly they could. That is very different than damaged goods though. It could simply be getting older and him settling into a pattern of regularly throwing 92 rather than 94 and it also does not guarantee the velocity will continue to drop.

I think the same could have been said of Gillick's trade for Garcia. There was the rationalization that he pitched well at the end of the season in that case. It may turn out to be nothing, but I see it as a red flag. I guess the saving grace with Arrieta is that, as opposed to trading for a pitcher, you can insist upon an extremely thorough physical before finalizing a deal.

[andyb]

"The Dodgers offered close to $100 million over six years for Darvish"

Did you even read the article or do you just look for isolated phrases out of context to make your point? The whole paragraph:

"One thing that holds true for both: They are beloved by their former teams. The Dodgers tried to sign Darvish (offering close to $100 million for six years) and Rangers GM Jon Daniels took him out for a nice meal and gave it a shot to lure him back with niceties (rather than hard cash). The Cubs were said to be interested in Arrieta at the same level as Darvish."

The market is important in whether these deals get accepted or not. And also the clubs' relative position against the luxury tax which was the Dodgers issue. The track record of pitchers over thirty is also nowhere near as cut and dry as you suggest. Everyone knows the back end of the contract is the cost of doing business. The front end often makes it worth it.

[andyb]

Boras has made one small point that Arrieta has fewer major league innings at this point (1161) than other pitchers at a similar age. Darvish has 832 plus 1,268 from Japan. Garcia was coming off his age 29 season before the Phillies and already had 1,645 major league innings. It helps Arrieta a bit that he scuffled early in his career and did not accumulate lots of innings at a young age which is another pitching red flag.

[Austinfan]

Show me the money.

The Dodgers seriously lowballed him, if they really wanted him, they would have found a way to dump another salary to make room for his contract - they've done that before (I know a team with lots of cap room . . .)

6 yrs under $100M suggests they saw him as a 11-14 WAR pitcher, in other words, three solid seasons as a #2/#3 then barely above replacement the rest of his contract.

Yes, he was beloved up to the point where they had to spend serious money.

[andyb]

The Dodgers seriously lowballed him, if they really wanted him, they would have found a way to dump another salary to make room for his contract - they've done that before (I know a team with lots of cap room . . .)

6 yrs under $100M suggests they saw him as a 11-14 WAR pitcher, in other words, three solid seasons as a #2/#3 then barely above replacement the rest of his contract.

Yes, he was beloved up to the point where they had to spend serious money.

Again you simplify things in a way that ignores facts (which changes everything). Teams cannot just get rid of $20 million salaries any more without a significant cost in prospects if the player is no longer that good. To get rid of Matt Kemp the Dodgers would have to include a top 100 prospect and likely more (i.e. several prospects). So if your statement is that the Dodgers only offered $100 million to Darvish (a lowball offer) because it would cost them a couple good prospects to offer him more than $120 million you would be closer to correct.

Everybody lowballs on early offers as they figure out the market. There is just no evidence that the Dodgers did not like Darvish. The article implies they loved him (based on the offer AND interviewing insiders). We know the team has a priority of getting under the luxury tax line for what they will do next year (i.e. Harper, et al). But only you interprets all that data as the team not liking Darvish that much. The evidence says otherwise.

[zambonir]

three solid seasons as a #2/#3 then barely above replacement the rest of his contract.

You say that it's like a bad thing. This is exactly what the Phillies need, it's just a question of how many years/how much money they can absorb at the end. Obviously, the less the better. But it doesn't have to be nothing by any means. The only true negative with those deals is if the pitcher doesn't totally break down and the team keeps playing him.

[Austinfan]

It's why you make those deals after you've become competitive, not to become competitive.
So the front three years or so (when the pitcher has value) are years when you're a playoff caliber team.
First lay the foundation, then the walls, finally the roof.

[EDmuch]

I get the feeling we will wind up with five starters from our current group. Boras is using us to pressure the Nats on Arrieta. And I see Cobb going to the Brewers of the Twins. We do not see to have an interest in Lynn.

[California_Dreamin]

EDmuch...I agree with you on the Nats and Arrieta. Not so sure I agree with you on Lynn. I still believe the Phils are likely to get one of the 3 free agent hurlers left. Middleton almost suggested as much a couple of days ago.

[bigegypt0417]

It's why you make those deals after you've become competitive, not to become competitive.
So the front three years or so (when the pitcher has value) are years when you're a playoff caliber team.
First lay the foundation, then the walls, finally the roof.

So you're saying instead of building towards being a more competitive team you wait until you're actually competitive? so you're a GM and you see a team that can win 75 games you just sit on your hands and not sign anyone until you have 80?

This is the 3rd consecutive year where your answer is wait to see what the kids do.