Previous Message

I generally don’t think it’s a good idea for a big market team to pay the prospect capital that is required for ‘cheap years of control.’ This one feels a bit different because there could be some real untapped upside with this guy, but often what happens is you are the paying a price that is equivalent to what it would take to get a great player but are only getting a good player in return.

Verlander turned into something way better than expected after this trade, but I think back to the post-WS window for the Cubs in ‘17/‘18. The Cubs traded 2 elite prospects to get controllable years from a #2 or really good #3 starter in Quintana. The Astros gave up nothing of real significance and took on a lot of money for Justin Verlander, who went out and pitched at a Cy Young level for multiple years. That made them a real contender for years while the Cubs faded away, obviously with other factors contributing to that as well.

And if you’re a team like Tampa or Cincinnati who needs to operate around the margins financially, that makes a ton of sense. If your a team who SHOULD be able to actually afford paying for great players, it feels like you are giving up more than you should just to save money.

Obviously the reality here is that the Cubs do in fact need to value cheap years of control way more than they should, so in that sense I undetermined why Jed would do it. But it shouldn’t have to be that way.