2036 Offseason Trade Review

[Ted]

Tyler Simmons and Ted Schmidt review the trades that occurred during the 2036 offseason. Unfortunately the big San Fernando/New Orleans blockbuster occurred a day or two after we record so it isn't in here. I'll try to get another one done during the season. This was recorded before opening day, so sorry if parts of it are a bit outdated. Also, you guys are gonna have to do better with offseason trades. These were a bit dull. Or get them done sooner. Randy and Jim, I'm looking at you!

Seattle/Huntsville 0:41
Madison/Jacksonville 3:46
Nashville/Huntsville 6:49
Charm City/Brooklyn, Brooklyn/Nashville, Yellow Springs/Brooklyn 11:39
San Fernando/Phoenix 17:20
San Fernando/Nashville 24:33
Yellow Springs/San Fernando 30:43
Wichita/Nashville 35:38
Nashville/Calgary 41:12
Hawaii/Omaha 42:00
Bonus Omaha vs Twin Cities discussion 47:03

[RonCo]

Nice run-down. I was taking notes as I listened....

Huntsville/Seattle: Ted's probably right on Seattle's view. Seattle could probably have gotten more if they were more aggressive, but they probably achieved their goal.

Madison/Jacksonville: Probably a useful deal for both. The conversation about bumping players is a valuable one to think about.

Nashville/Huntsville: Everheart and Perkins could give some value if they're used well, but it takes a little effort. Agree with Tyler that there are ways to make up Brinson's replacement and that these are useful players for a team coming up the curve. Possibly a useful deal for both--but Brett needs to keep working The Plan. The initial question on these are "did they make the organizations better?" and I think the answer here was yes. The follow on question "could Nashville have gotten more?" has a more complicated answer. Perhaps he could have gotten more, but the other view (that I suppose Matt can confirm!) is that a salesman is always closing, and a bird in the hand is worth three in the bush.

Brooklyn/Nashville/Charm City/Yellow Springs: Earl Jackson seemed to deflate when he left us. Sad. At least he's on a 1 season deal, and he's popular. Miranda is ok. A little pricey, but again, one year. I don't think he pays for himself, though. Interesting conversation about Camacho. I don't think his defensive ratings scream game-changer, but they do suggest league average. His personality ratings are strong enough that he just needs a few points funnelled into his work ethic and the clubhouse issue will mitigate away. I picked him up mostly as an emergency relief valve to play CF vs. LHP in case I couldn't sign Garcia back.

San Fernando/Phoenix: Overall agree. Lacaze is too expensive, but not horrible. More worried about the years than the total. The idea of service time adjustment impacting free agency would make an interesting podcast debate. THere are arguments for and counter-arguments against.

San Fernando/Nashville: I generally agree, but Kamade is a very good player who is popular, so he'll be useful on the way up (Lee is probably not going to be as good or as popular. It's a weakish defense, but it's a valid view. Also, realize that Kamade has been playing in parks that completely destroy gap power, and he's moving to one that augments doubles. Bottom line, Nashville got the best player in the deal, but I agree that it just felt like a deal that would have gone the other direction. That said, this is one where Brett could well be justified with a "I told you so" later.

Yellow Springs/San Fernando: I generally agree, but the uncertainty is Guerra's bump. If it's real and he grows into it, SFB got a steal. We'll see, though. It was time to cut bait for us, though. Allen/Robertson are ready and we'll just have to see if their defense is too horrific when they hit the field.

Nashville/Wichita: Getting rid of Jenkins' contract was worth it in the end, but only if he can turn the cash into some decent value. Cruz isn't great, but Nashville's pitching needs everything it can get. Bottom line on the whole Jenkins thing to me is that this is the kind of spiraling out of control thing that I can get into when I make a mistake and then try to fix it.

Calgary/Wichita: I like Thomas as a stop-gap starter, but the sleeper here is Perez, who is an elite defender everywhere and at 19 all it takes is a couple small bumps and he'll be one of those quiet impact players I love so much. I also like Ferringo as a possible bump guy. He could add value later.

[Ted]

Dude. I just posted this. Hah.

[RonCo]

It was a good way to spend my breakfast hour.

[usnspecialist]

FYI for the Kamade discussion, Havana's park was 1.0 across the board for everything. The difference doesnt show up much in the doubles, but massive difference in triples (12,7,11 in Havana, 4 in San Fernando).

[ae37jr]

Almost afraid to listen to this one. Jackson and Miranda I traded because I was going to nontender them anyway. Combined they are making roughly $13 million this season and both were going to be platoon players at best.

Camacho still had some controllability. I just gave up on him. It wasn't really his attitude. I actually never had an issue with the clubhouse. The only time I noticed it was when I sent him down, I always got a message saying his team mates were glad he is gone. It was his career .238/.307/.369 in 1,286 career at bats that was the sealing deal. I have a couple of young guys
(José Campos and Antony Henderson) who could at least do that while covering the 2B/OF backup role. All and all these three trades gave us a $20 mil swing($14 in lost salary, $6 in cash return). Something that was very necessary after I threw caution to the wind and went beyond my resources last season to extend Balderas and Cruz.

[RonCo]

FYI for the Kamade discussion, Havana's park was 1.0 across the board for everything. The difference doesnt show up much in the doubles, but massive difference in triples (12,7,11 in Havana, 4 in San Fernando).

Gap will make a difference in triples, too. Just spit-balling, I use a personal rule of thumb that a point of gap probably converts 5 singles to doubles/triples in a neutral park, but that's not a particularly scientifically derived number. It's probably fair to say Gap" is overrated (particularly by under-experienced GMs), but I think it's also vastly underrated by a lot of GMs because I figure a lot of folks pretend it doesn't exist. So it goes both ways.

[GoldenOne]

Key part in all of this - Nashville is a better team this season than last and they still have prospects and budget space to make deals when they need to. That's the name of the game, right? Win more this year than last year and prep to win even more games next year. Goats are still on their way.

[felipe]

Added a better player in Jenkins; we can afford the cap hit

So why not?

[agrudez]

Since the NSH-HSV trade, Brinson has bumped 1 STU POT (going from 2.5 star POT to 3.5 star POT) and started showing a tremendous +LHB split, Guerrero lumped 1 EYE OVR/POT and Everhart lumped 1 IF Range (which took him from a below average 3B to a surefire 1B). So... yeah, I have to admit it looks pretty bad now. When you could squint and see Everhart as a cheap .75 OPS (below average defense) 3B, Perkins as a cheap .8 OPS DH and Guerrero as a cheap .65 OPS (great defense) backup C and Brinson as a LOOGY prospect (which at 8/7/6 with a small -RHB split he most definitely was in my estimation at the time of the trade) it seemed like a team dumping semi-valuable spare parts for semi-valuable prospects. Not as much anymore.

[Ted]

Since the NSH-HSV trade, Brinson has bumped 1 STU POT (going from 2.5 star POT to 3.5 star POT) and started showing a tremendous +LHB split, Guerrero lumped 1 EYE OVR/POT and Everhart lumped 1 IF Range (which took him from a below average 3B to a surefire 1B). So... yeah, I have to admit it looks pretty bad now. When you could squint and see Everhart as a cheap .75 OPS (below average defense) 3B, Perkins as a cheap .8 OPS DH and Guerrero as a cheap .65 OPS (great defense) backup C and Brinson as a LOOGY prospect (which at 8/7/6 with a small -RHB split he most definitely was in my estimation at the time of the trade) it seemed like a team dumping semi-valuable spare parts for semi-valuable prospects. Not as much anymore.

This is always a problem with trade reviews and player development volatility, although a knowledge of how players are most likely to be volatile should surely factor into any analysis.

[agrudez]

This is always a problem with trade reviews and player development volatility, although a knowledge of how players are most likely to be volatile should surely factor into any analysis.

When he was offered to me, I was intrigued by Brinson's level of development relative to his age (my personal favorite anecdotal identifier of potential bumps), that's true. On the other side, Everhart and Guererro are 27 and 29 respectively without big injury histories afaik so I'm not sure there were any red flags there.

[RonCo]

It's definitely wise to look at age and development level in assessing the actual value of prospects.

[RonCo]

That was a very big difference in Jefferson Pierce and Tobias Wulms, for example.

[GoldenOne]

This is always a problem with trade reviews and player development volatility, although a knowledge of how players are most likely to be volatile should surely factor into any analysis.

When he was offered to me, I was intrigued by Brinson's level of development relative to his age (my personal favorite anecdotal identifier of potential bumps), that's true. On the other side, Everhart and Guererro are 27 and 29 respectively without big injury histories afaik so I'm not sure there were any red flags there.

I'm still good with this. Sure, Brinson is a lefty and will be decent in the pen but my future pen already looks like it might be the strongest part of my team soon. (Which is good, based on my current starters. ) Everheart is doing what I wanted him for; Perkins is the switch-hitter that can get on base and maybe play a limited corner OF from time to time, and Guererros is starting out nicely with that bat and is really only there to spell Luo and throw some runners out/keep them from running in the late innings. If I can get that sort of betterment for my team with basically a single bullpen guy, I'll do it every time. With the exception of a few - if you want relievers, come talk to me.

[agrudez]

Btw, trading relievers (both in the majors and prospects) for starters/position players during a rebuild is one of my go-to moves, too, so I'm definitely on board with the strategy you're going with there. Trading all my relievers in that one down season got me the likes of Nicto, Barrera, Yelainen and Klein so, yeah, I'd do that all over 1000 times out of 1000 (with the possible exception of Klein... how did both of those relievers I traded bump? lol). And now my bullpen is a strength anyway since it's the easiest position to fill via FA (though, admittedly, that strategy doesn't last forever since your prospects will need the money you're giving to relievers now someday in the future).

[GoldenOne]

Thanks for the reminder on the Nicto trade! Vlleugel (lost in Rule 5) and Tremblett (he is what you think he is) sounded good at the time but I know better now. I hope.

[agrudez]

It takes everyone a little while to acclimate to talent in a league - even if you're an OOTP veteran, each league has different nuance. It's better to learn the league without making the mistakes in the first place, but if you do make them, learning from them is a solid consolation prize. If you're ever feeling iffy about a trade or just want a second opinion about it for shits and giggles, feel free to reach out to me at any time. At a minimum, you can expect a blunt appraisal - in much the same way I offer opinions in public.

[RonCo]

And that's before we even get to the differences in how veterans of the league value players.