- This topic has 2,444 replies, 59 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
My proposal for Cease would be O’Neill, Burleson, Graceffo, and Thompson.
According to BTV the values are pretty close. Cease is at 40 and our four guys are around 37.
There is a group of Thompson, Libby and Romero whose surplus is around 15mil.
Thompson I value more than Libby in a swingman role. Romero is needed for late innings, leaving Libby with the short straw.
I think Mo’s trade moves will be as unexpected as his FA moves. Sacred cow might end up on the menu.
Well jj, its like this. If, after the last game of the season, someone had predicted Mo would sign a starter who came in second in the Cy Young vote, I would have laughed out loud. I am not laughing off anything as of now.
I guess our trade chips would be:
active roster – O’Neill
Edman (but only if GC will sign off on it)
Carlson
Donovantop 10 prospects – Saggese
Davis
Cho
Bernal
one of the pitchers in the top 10IMO, our trading strength looks a lot different with Walker off the table.
I don’t see a point in trading for Cease. He is going to cost $8 million, plus four prospects?
You still have Ryu, Lugo, Clevinger, Wacha and Lorenzen that only cost money, and fit within the current Cardinals budget.
I proposed on trade that would clear about $11 million from the payroll and bolster the bullpen – O’Neill, Carlson & Gallegos for Jason Foley & Tyler Holton of the Tigers. The idea is that the Tigers get two outfielders and a downgrade at reliever, assume $11 million in salary, but overall are better. The Cardinals fortify their bullpen with cost-effective relievers. At the time, the trade proposed was equal according to the Simulator.
Now it would take O’Neill, Carlson, Gallegos & King to approximate the value of Tyler Holton and Will Vest.
And the Cardinals would have to spend a portion of the savings to backfill the outfield with somebody like Adam Duvall.
There is another option – the Yankees had 7 relievers with an ERA below 3.38 in 2023.
The Cardinals could probably trade Contreras, Carlson & Burleson for three of those relievers, plus one of the six catchers on the Yankees’ 40 man roster, plus a prospect or two.
Position players > relievers
MLB players > prospectsNow, the simulator doesn’t like Contreras’ contract value. Overnight, it went from -10.1 to -16.5, but the Yankees aren’t going to care about his contract value.
They are going to care that their best catcher in 2023 had an OPS of .687 while Contreras had an OPS of .825.
They care that they were 25th in runs scored, and have said they need two outfielders, preferably left-handed. They were also supposedly in talks with the Cardinals about Dylan Carlson at the trade deadline.
Trading Contreras, Carlson & Burleson gives them a CF, a catcher who can hit, and a left-handed backup 1B/DH.
Cardinals fortify their bullpen, save at least $10 million depending on who comes back, and get a prospect or two.
A player with a backloaded contract like Contreras or Matz will have a surplus value lower than what it could have been on a even paying AAV contract.
The -16.5 BTV has for Willson would have been -9.0 today, with an even paying AAV.
Thanks for the explanation. But why did it change today, as opposed to when the season ended, or when the 40 man was declared?
They have been changing the values this week. I don’t know how often it happens. At seasons end seems like a natural time to update, but they may do it non-stop too.
All, many of us who enjoy trade proposals are referencing the BTV site. It’s free, is the only trade site i know of, and it has its own model it follows.
Lets agree the model is likely not perfect, but is used across the league on everyone. So it’s fair to an individual contract / player.
If you listen to the ex-GM’s long enough, they preach “you don’t trade players, you trade contracts”, and that “all contracts are not structured the same”. That’s an important point.
The BTV overview is simple, total field value (AFV) in millions, minus total salaries in millions, equals + or – surplus value.
So, we sign Sonny Gray for 3/75mil and the BTV model churns out an expected 78.5mil in field value (AFV) over the duration of the contract. BTV thinks Gray signed for 3.5mil under his expected field value.
Today that looks good, but we know STL backloaded the contract. Currently Grays contract is 78.5mil(AFV), minus 75mil (with an AAV of 25mil) = 3.5mil surplus value. Simple subtraction.
By next season this contract will be a negative surplus due to salary backloading. Lets assume two-thirds of his AFV remains (52.3mil). By backloading 15mil in yr one, his contract next offseason has 2/65mil remaining. 52.3 minus 65mil is -12.7mil surplus value.
So even if Gray holds his field value AAV in 2024, that is established today, he becomes a negative surplus for 2025, because his new salary AAV is 65mil divided by two (32.5mil).
My point is, we can’t just look at a players negative surplus value, like Grays will be next season, and assume he is a negative player. The contracts matter.
Willson and Matz both are negative surplus today, and both were paid salaries under their contract AAV in a previous seasons.
Fyi, BTV has Lynn at 3mil surplus and Gibson at 0.4
Their model suggests STL signed these three pitchers to contracts slightly under their field value.I don’t see a point in trading for Cease. He is going to cost $8 million, plus four prospects?
You still have Ryu, Lugo, Clevinger, Wacha and Lorenzen that only cost money, and fit within the current Cardinals budget.
I think there is a pretty big talent gap between Cease and the four pitchers you mentioned.
And the four players I mentioned sending to the Sox all have varying degrees of upside but are players the Cardinals can live without. Plus if you send O’Neill as part of the deal then Cease is only a $2M net increase to the payroll.
Ken Rosenthal wrote a column that says that the Cardinals are back in the race for Dylan Cease. Several writers have picked up on it and commented on it causing the rumors to heat up. Some are saying that the trade for Cease would be a blockbuster. When the term ‘blockbuster’ is used for a trade involving a White Sox pitcher coming off of a lousy season, I’m inclined to think that the idea of a blockbuster originated somewhere in the White Sox front office. Now if Luis Robert was going to be included in a trade, blockbuster would mean blockbuster. But there’s not the slightest hint that Robert is going to be part of any deal whatsoever. So then, what could the Cardinals offer to the White Sox for Cease that would make sense to both sides? The White Sox need everything, so all the Cardinals have to do is figure out what they can afford to give up. Would Donovan and O’Neill do it? Probably not, since there are other clubs trying to trade for Cease, also, so add Matz. The trade then would be O’Neill, Donovan, and Matz to the White Sox for Cease. The White Sox may ask for more than that. So it eventually boils down to what the Cardinals are willing to give up. The Winter Meetings run Sunday (12/3) through Wednesday (12/6) of next week.
I assume the 2022 season still counts for Cease. He was 2nd in Cy Young vote. I would trade for him in a heartbeat unless the ask was ridiculous.
A name I have seen floated but doesn’t get talked about is Pablo Lopez. Locked up with a contract that is right in Mo’s wheelhouse. But how to get him away from the Twins? I can’t imagine them doing anything but hanging up if Mo were to call about Lopez. But, never say never.
Both Walker and Liberatore fall short of one year service time.
2024 should be the last near minimum salary for Nootbaar, Donovan and Gorman
Re Lopez. Mo does have trade ammo, but it would be painful. We’d be talking guys in off the ledge. I have advocated trading from strength to address weakness, so I wouldn’t be out there with them this time.
A “blockbuster” trade with the CWS would signal a rebuild by the Sox. A proposal by the Sox could be…
They would want:
Walker, Winn, Hence and Herrera (125.9 BTV)We would get:
Robert, Cease and Santos (125.5 BTV)…should Mo accept?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.