Reasonable Trade Discussion

[SKO]

I can't seem to get screenshots to work but these are his actual tweets, all of which are his objection to the trade for baseball reasons, not even considering the DV:

"Sustained success is the key and should be the goal for every team. That's what makes this move just unbelievably stupid"
"my objection is that the thing the cubs get back in this deal- chapman, a three month rental of a relief pitcher-is almost fundamentally worthless"
"just bad asset management. traded a lottery ticket for a gas station cheeseburger"

So I don't think his staunch opposition to domestic violence is the key here. I think he once again thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and that Theo, the guy who built a team around Rizzo/Bryant/Russell/Scwharber/Baez/Heyward/Contreras, doesn't know the value of controllable talent.

If your take is "I don't want this wife beater no matter the cost" I respect that, totally. If your argument is "I know how to manage assets better than Theo, he should be traded to the Twins", mayyyybe fuck off.

So, we don't agree that Torres/Warren/McKinney/some rando A+ player is too much for a 2-3 month rental? If they have an extension in place, that changes it, but I don't love the deal if it's just for the 2-3 months. It seems to be much in contrast to what Theo says about mortgaging the future if it's the 2-3 month rental

I think we agree it's an overpay, I think *Theo* would agree it is an overpay, I think Theo has decided he can afford to overpay with a prospect that doesn't have a future in Chicago to marginally increase his chance at winning a world series this year, in what I'm pretty sure is their best opportunity to win it all. You can absolutely disagree with Theo's calculus, but to clutch your shawls tightly and rant about controllable assets and Theo being off his rocker and how he should be traded away because he's gone insane is pretty douche-y. He knows what he's doing. It's fine to disagree with the trade but giving up a blocked prospect, however good, in a legitimate move to try and win a title is hardly a fireable offense.

[ChuckD]

Ah, gotcha. I went to his page and it all seemed to be about Chapman being a scumbag.

"just bad asset management. traded a lottery ticket for a gas station cheeseburger"

I don't like the trade now that more details have come out, but that's a shit metaphor. The expected value of a lottery ticket is like $0.000000000001. Trading it for a gas station cheeseburger would be good asset management.

[Quality Start Machine]

While I'd love an extension, winning the whole fucking thing justifies the means whatever they are.

But if Rizzo wants to pummel him immediately after he gets the final out, that would rule.

[SKO]

And for him to go so far and say he's "hoping they get swept in the NLDS" so Theo sees the error in his thinking and also to say that he wouldn't want this team to win one or even three world series because Theo dared to not follow the Matthew Trueblood Outcomes Do Not Validate Processes Method is the height of douche. If his objection were just grounded in his moral objection to the trade, fine, but the tweets make it pretty clear he's objecting to Theo's evaluation of his prospects most of all.

[SKO]

Ah, gotcha. I went to his page and it all seemed to be about Chapman being a scumbag.

"just bad asset management. traded a lottery ticket for a gas station cheeseburger"

I don't like the trade now that more details have come out, but that's a shit metaphor. The expected value of a lottery ticket is like $0.000000000001. Trading it for a gas station cheeseburger would be good asset management.

Yeah the amusing thing is I don't really like this trade. It is an overpay and I think Chapman's a douchebag. But from a baseball only standpoint it does increase their odds of winning it all this year however marginally and I don't think it's a horrendous overpay, just the kind that teams on the cusp of winning it all are prone to making.

I just am not surprised Trueblood managed to wade in with his Smartest Man in the Room smugness and have the worst take of all.

[ChuckD]

Ah, gotcha. I went to his page and it all seemed to be about Chapman being a scumbag.

"just bad asset management. traded a lottery ticket for a gas station cheeseburger"

I don't like the trade now that more details have come out, but that's a shit metaphor. The expected value of a lottery ticket is like $0.000000000001. Trading it for a gas station cheeseburger would be good asset management.

Yeah the amusing thing is I don't really like this trade. It is an overpay and I think Chapman's a douchebag. But from a baseball only standpoint it does increase their odds of winning it all this year however marginally and I don't think it's a horrendous overpay, just the kind that teams on the cusp of winning it all are prone to making.

I just am not surprised Trueblood managed to wade in with his Smartest Man in the Room smugness and have the worst take of all.

I was thinking it's a lot like the Snork/Hammel trade.

Elite SS Prospect + Billy McKinney + AAAA swingman + something/body else.

The A's got 1.5 years of Snork and a half season of Hammel.

The Cubs are getting a half season of Chapman and a lot of off-field baggage.

Seems like comparatively, the A's got the better deal since they got two SPs for the second half and could flip Snork's final year for other prospects afterward.

But ... 105.

[SKO]

Ah, gotcha. I went to his page and it all seemed to be about Chapman being a scumbag.

"just bad asset management. traded a lottery ticket for a gas station cheeseburger"

I don't like the trade now that more details have come out, but that's a shit metaphor. The expected value of a lottery ticket is like $0.000000000001. Trading it for a gas station cheeseburger would be good asset management.

Yeah the amusing thing is I don't really like this trade. It is an overpay and I think Chapman's a douchebag. But from a baseball only standpoint it does increase their odds of winning it all this year however marginally and I don't think it's a horrendous overpay, just the kind that teams on the cusp of winning it all are prone to making.

I just am not surprised Trueblood managed to wade in with his Smartest Man in the Room smugness and have the worst take of all.

I was thinking it's a lot like the Snork/Hammel trade.

Elite SS Prospect + Billy McKinney + AAAA swingman + something/body else.

The A's got 1.5 years of Snork and a half season of Hammel.

The Cubs are getting a half season of Chapman and a lot of off-field baggage.

Seems like comparatively, the A's got the better deal since they got two SPs for the second half and could flip Snork's final year for other prospects afterward.

But ... 105.

I think it's possible we've overvalued Gleyber because he's been good for his age but his ceiling still actually seems to be merely "pretty good" and not "great." Freddy Sanchez at SS is the comp that stuck with me. That's a very useful player but it's not one that has a future as a Cub and it's also likely that our fantasy trade packages gave him more value than he actually has. Sahadev was one of a few guys I saw last night saying teams were more impressed with Happ/Eloy then Gleyber.

But again I don't doubt that it's an overpay, it's just one I'm comfortable with them making, or would be if Chapman was just a baseball player and not a wife beater. Hell I don't disagree with Beane making that trade back in 2014 either. Their second half collapse was pretty inexplicable and had little to do with that trade, and he then sold Snork before it was too late and got Semien out of it, and Semien has been nearly as valuable as Addison this year.

[Quality Start Machine]

I was thinking it's a lot like the Snork/Hammel trade.

Elite SS Prospect + Billy McKinney + AAAA swingman + something/body else.

The A's got 1.5 years of Snork and a half season of Hammel.

The Cubs are getting a half season of Chapman and a lot of off-field baggage.

Seems like comparatively, the A's got the better deal since they got two SPs for the second half and could flip Snork's final year for other prospects afterward.

But ... 105.

After an inning of Strop and an inning of Rondon.

[R-V]

If they have an extension in place, that changes it

I don't understand this thinking - the Yankees aren't giving anything of value up if Chapman signs an extension. This would be a function of the Cubs having a skill at negotiating contracts, not reflective of any trade-making skill.

[Eli]

If they have an extension in place, that changes it

I don't understand this thinking - the Yankees aren't giving anything of value up if Chapman signs an extension. This would be a function of the Cubs having a skill at negotiating contracts, not reflective of any trade-making skill.

Correct. The extension may make fans feel better, but it has zero trade value.

[SKO]

If they have an extension in place, that changes it

I don't understand this thinking - the Yankees aren't giving anything of value up if Chapman signs an extension. This would be a function of the Cubs having a skill at negotiating contracts, not reflective of any trade-making skill.

Correct. The extension may make fans feel better, but it has zero trade value.

I've never understood that at all. Is that like an NBA mindset or something? I know "sign and trade" is a thing over there but I really get baffled when I see people act like that matters in baseball. Maybe that makes more sense in a league with a salary cap?

[Canadouche]

If they have an extension in place, that changes it

I don't understand this thinking - the Yankees aren't giving anything of value up if Chapman signs an extension. This would be a function of the Cubs having a skill at negotiating contracts, not reflective of any trade-making skill.

It's reflective of their trade making skill in the sense that they (probably) won't pull the trigger unless they lock him up for a few years.

[R-V]

If they have an extension in place, that changes it

I don't understand this thinking - the Yankees aren't giving anything of value up if Chapman signs an extension. This would be a function of the Cubs having a skill at negotiating contracts, not reflective of any trade-making skill.

It's reflective of their trade making skill in the sense that they (probably) won't pull the trigger unless they lock him up for a few years.

Disagree. Trades should be evaluated on the players you give up, and the players you get back. The salaries and team control of the players at the time the deal is made should enter into that, but if the Cubs can convince Chapman to sign an extension after the trade it doesn't mean that they or the Yankees give up a different set of players.

[Quality Start Machine]

If they have an extension in place, that changes it

I don't understand this thinking - the Yankees aren't giving anything of value up if Chapman signs an extension. This would be a function of the Cubs having a skill at negotiating contracts, not reflective of any trade-making skill.

It's reflective of their trade making skill in the sense that they (probably) won't pull the trigger unless they lock him up for a few years.

Disagree. Trades should be evaluated on the players you give up, and the players you get back. The salaries and team control of the players at the time the deal is made should enter into that, but if the Cubs can convince Chapman to sign an extension after the trade it doesn't mean that they or the Yankees give up a different set of players.

What it does is change the overall concept of the trade from "four guys for a rental" to "four guys for the closer for the next x seasons". And I think Jepstink are smart enough to know whether the second scenario is realistic or not.

Of course, if the concept is changed to "four guys for a World Championship", then I don't think anyone here will think they overpaid.

[SKO]

If they have an extension in place, that changes it

I don't understand this thinking - the Yankees aren't giving anything of value up if Chapman signs an extension. This would be a function of the Cubs having a skill at negotiating contracts, not reflective of any trade-making skill.

It's reflective of their trade making skill in the sense that they (probably) won't pull the trigger unless they lock him up for a few years.

Disagree. Trades should be evaluated on the players you give up, and the players you get back. The salaries and team control of the players at the time the deal is made should enter into that, but if the Cubs can convince Chapman to sign an extension after the trade it doesn't mean that they or the Yankees give up a different set of players.

What it does is change the overall concept of the trade from "four guys for a rental" to "four guys for the closer for the next x seasons". And I think Jepstink are smart enough to know whether the second scenario is realistic or not.

Of course, if the concept is changed to "four guys for a World Championship", then I don't think anyone here will think they overpaid.

No it doesn't. The trade was four guys for the rights to Aroldis Chapman for 2 months and a postseason. All indications are the Yankees only traded him after he refused their offer of an extension. He's going to hit the open market and will only re-sign with the Cubs if they make the best offer. The trade did fuckall to increase the odds of him being a Cub in 2017.