Consequences, reactions and hostility towards the trade of Big Yu Darvish and Victor Caratini

Consequences, reactions and hostility towards the trade of Big Yu Darvish and Victor Caratini

by

I will have the normal Cubs Bullets later this morning, but I have so many items to review that are about big business that I thought I should put them in their own place.

If you missed the news, the Cubs are swapping Yu Darvish and Victor Caratini for the Fathers for four very young candidates and Zach Davies. It is less shocking that the Cubs are trading Darvish right now, but much more shocking that the focus of the return is high risk and long term. I suppose an easy answer is that the Cubs decided that they absolutely, unequivocally, would have to dispose of a significant salary, and that was the best return they could get from Darvish (who had one of the most substantial salaries they were able to move). It is not as if the Fathers had to give the Cubs short-term pieces. They could just keep saying no. Maybe yes.

The deal is still pending the review of medical information, which is a non-zero factor when you’re talking about so many players (also, don’t forget it was AJ Preller and the Fathers who had serious problems with hiding medical data and trading information. (an important factor was a negotiation that sent Colin Rea to the Marlins and had to be terminated (and now Rea is with the Cubs!))). It is rare for doctors to actually negotiate a deal like this, but it can sometimes lead to a little maneuver on the sides to get a little more included.

Other thoughts, reactions and notes …

• Prospects are being grouped in discussions for good reason – almost everywhere you look, they all fall into a very narrow range in the Fathers’ farm system. FanGraphs’ midseason rating had the widest range (8 to 26), but MLB Pipeline had all four from 11 to 16, and Baseball America was preparing to place them in the same type of narrow range:

• In the Cubs system, this is likely to lead you to a similar track, because this is where you find recent IFA signings, such as Ronnier Quintero and Kevin Made, as well as recent picks of second-round talent like Burl Carraway and Ethan Hearn. Bryan will have a lot more about the new Cubs outlook soon.

• Lucas makes a good point here about what may have been a SMALL factor in the return:

• More traditional prospects would leave you with virtually zero recent prospecting information, which means that you would be at a great disadvantage of information in a negotiation with the Fathers (we’ve discussed this problem before, usually, when it comes to negotiations in potential in this off-season). For the IFA and draft prospects, however, the information disadvantage would be much less, as the Cubs would have looked at players at an initial level very close at the same time as the Fathers. It is fair to assume that the Lions know all four prospects relatively well and may even wish to hire Caissie and / or sign some of the IFAs.

• As an aside, if you imagine that one of the four potential customers would be a fair return for Victor Caratini (I’m not sure it would be, but let’s say it is), then you’re talking about Davies and the other three for Darvish. Oof, right? Like, these are good prospects that could very well become stallions. But teams are able to add that level of organic perspective each year in the IFA and draft. It’s basically as if the Cubs have traded Darvish and Caratini for some extra IFA signings and another second-round choice. Great pieces to have, but you know that the risk profile is extreme.

• Bruce Levine was at 670 The Score right now, while I was writing this, and made notes to paraphrase his comments: I don’t think it’s a reconstruction, because part of the money saved during this off-season won’t necessarily just be discarded. Part of that money could be used to increase 2021. But the focus of the trade was to add young talent. But I think they have money to spend and want to form a team that can compete in a meaningless category. It’s not like the Cubs are just going to pocket all that money. I just don’t believe it. One team wanted Darvish so badly, and it was the Fathers. And that was the best deal the Cubs got, given the financial situation of the game and the contract.

• In contrast, Dave Kaplan points almost exclusively to money as the reason for the exchange:

• Gordon Wittenmyer discharged a little and sees the Cubs sinking the 2021 season:

• Wittenmyer even included this section:

But by canceling most of the $ 60 million owed to Darvish over the next three years, the billionaire owners of the Cubs have secured more space to breathe in the business loans they have made to buy and rebuild Wrigleyville in recent years.

A source told David Kaplan of NBC Sports Chicago that these loans amount to about $ 1 billion in Ricketts debts involving the franchise and related businesses, such as Hickory Street Capital, his real estate company.

Whether structured and connected to the franchise in a way that technically violates MLB’s debt service rules, it certainly seems to violate the intent of those rules (which are negotiated collectively with the players’ union).

• The implication of this is that the owners are prohibited by the MLB from taking on too many debts in relation to revenue, so that this does not impede their ability to compete / pay adequate compensation to players. I don’t know if we can still know if this has anything to do with this business, but I think it has the appearance of a business that was dirty enough with salary that it’s justifiable to ask a question. No one with the Cubs will answer, of course. But it is worth asking. And then we’ll see if the team’s behavior in free agency for the rest of this off-season provides any answer.

• This was my opinion at the moment about this element of trade, with regard to 2021:

• I think I can take it 10 hours later. Gut says it is more likely than not that the Cubs will now try to turn, say, $ 10 million into a trio of low-cost, big-league, one-year signings. Maybe a utility / second base, an outfielder and an initial launcher? None will surprise you, but all are perhaps the type to recover, and if one or two get it right, do you cover ANYTHING you missed in the Darvish trade (in terms of performance in 2021)? I could see that. I may not think the Cubs should have to change the damn Yu Darvish to precede these moves, but that doesn’t mean that now I can’t accept reality and say, OK, I think that’s what they are likely to do. NL Central is that bad, and the Cubs have many other talented players that, in reality, they are not going to trade now.

• Meanwhile, the Fathers and Preller deserve all the praise they will receive for this trade and the Snell trade (and Kim’s signature), because they did it without fundamentally altering their absurdly good farm system:

• I bet it’s cool to be a fan of Padres right now, huh?

Source