RealGM

ItsDanger wrote:Other teams trade top prospects and get Juan Soto type players. Maybe draw a comparison somewhere in between?

There are many more layers to the argument that you are trying to nonchalantly pigeonhole in.

The Padres traded FOUR top prospects (Abrams, Gore, Wood, Hassell) plus a 5th low-minors pitcher who was hitting 100 mph (Susana) to get ~2.3 years worth of Juan Soto, at a payroll hit of $20-$30 mill per year.

The Yankees traded much less to get 1 year of Juan Soto, at a $31 mill payroll hit.

The Blue Jays acquired 4 years of Daulton Varsho at peanut-level salaries. He made $3 mill last year and makes $5.6 mill this year.

This distinction is important because teams aren't just acquiring "a player". They are acquiring their contractual control (or lack thereof) plus the salary impact to their current and future payroll. A player's trade value is the culmination of all of those details, plus others. The fact that Soto is represented by Boras and is openly looking for $600+ mill (or whatever he wants) after this season is not a "non-factor" in any trade for him - this isn't a video game you are playing.

The Jays took a calculated risk to bet on Varsho who was coming off a 4.4 fWAR season with 4 years left on his entry-level contract. The fact that he is still on his entry-level contract means that they acquired a potentially high impact player while still maintaining payroll flexibility - which is important given the impending contract statuses of Vlad and Bichette, and the rest of the current team (for example the sunk-cost of Springer). That is the gamble they made. He underperformed last season, but if he produces 15 fWAR over the next three seasons is anyone going to be whining still?

The above logic is the only reason why "top prospects" are even worth anything, by the way. Why would I trade a star MLB player for someone who hasn't even done anything in the MLB yet? Well, because that unproven player is cost-controlled for YEARS - which means that if they actually do fulfill their prospect status, you are getting a star MLB player who is paid nothing for multiple MLB seasons. Or you are getting nothing.

-MetA4- wrote:

ItsDanger wrote:Other teams trade top prospects and get Juan Soto type players. Maybe draw a comparison somewhere in between?

There are many more layers to the argument that you are trying to nonchalantly pigeonhole in.

The Padres traded FOUR top prospects (Abrams, Gore, Wood, Hassell) plus a 5th low-minors pitcher who was hitting 100 mph (Susana) to get ~2.3 years worth of Juan Soto, at a payroll hit of $20-$30 mill per year.

The Yankees traded much less to get 1 year of Juan Soto, at a $31 mill payroll hit.

The Blue Jays acquired 4 years of Daulton Varsho at peanut-level salaries. He made $3 mill last year and makes $5.6 mill this year.

This distinction is important because teams aren't just acquiring "a player". They are acquiring their contractual control (or lack thereof) plus the salary impact to their current and future payroll. A player's trade value is the culmination of all of those details, plus others. The fact that Soto is represented by Boras and is openly looking for $600+ mill (or whatever he wants) after this season is not a "non-factor" in any trade for him - this isn't a video game you are playing.

The Jays took a calculated risk to bet on Varsho who was coming off a 4.4 fWAR season with 4 years left on his entry-level contract. The fact that he is still on his entry-level contract means that they acquired a potentially high impact player while still maintaining payroll flexibility - which is important given the impending contract statuses of Vlad and Bichette, and the rest of the current team (for example the sunk-cost of Springer). That is the gamble they made. He underperformed last season, but if he produces 15 fWAR over the next three seasons is anyone going to be whining still?

The above logic is the only reason why "top prospects" are even worth anything, by the way. Why would I trade a star MLB player for someone who hasn't even done anything in the MLB yet? Well, because that unproven player is cost-controlled for YEARS - which means that if they actually do fulfill their prospect status, you are getting a star MLB player who is paid nothing for multiple MLB seasons. Or you are getting nothing.

Throwing out useless MLB advanced stats means nothing to me. Defense is spread out roughly even throughout the sample. Offense is not. Good hitters can produce against good pitchers. Anyways, I'm not going to partake in a statistical argument. My main point is the argument presented here is flawed. It's what you could have traded a top 5 prospect for. Instead of an inconsistent. 240 hitter with good glove. This lineup needs more.

ItsDanger wrote:Other teams trade top prospects and get Juan Soto type players. Maybe draw a comparison somewhere in between?

I mean, Yankees got Soto for one year (and it cost them multiple prospects), we got Varsho for his entire arb eligibility.

I'm not sure if that's really a like-for-like comparison.

Imagine thinking this was a bad trade. Couldn't be me.

Parataxis wrote:

ItsDanger wrote:Other teams trade top prospects and get Juan Soto type players. Maybe draw a comparison somewhere in between?

I mean, Yankees got Soto for one year (and it cost them multiple prospects), we got Varsho for his entire arb eligibility.

I'm not sure if that's really a like-for-like comparison.

I stated in between. Not as good as Soto, but better than Varsho. Moreno was a top 5 prospect at the time. Add something extra maybe, and get a more consistent reliable bat.

Randle McMurphy wrote:

Read on Twitter

Imagine thinking this was a bad trade. Couldn't be me.

How about waiting to see how Varsho does in May and June? Last year, you and a couple of others on here were all excited when Varsho was spectacular hitting wise for two weeks in April. Then he fell flat afterwards.

Varsho has had a terrific Week. Let's see if that one very good week, can carry over to the months ahead before we examine the trade again. Just like how you randomly proclaimed last year how Gurriel's hot streak in his all-star first half, and his great start this year should not matter since he ultimately declines. Now you are pumping up Varsho with his one excellent week.

Mehar wrote:

Randle McMurphy wrote:

Read on Twitter

Imagine thinking this was a bad trade. Couldn't be me.

How about waiting to see how Varsho does in May and June? Last year, you and a couple of others on here were all excited when Varsho was spectacular hitting wise for two weeks in April. Then he fell flat afterwards.

Varsho has had a terrific Week. Let's see if that one very good week, can carry over to the months ahead before we examine the trade again. Just like how you randomly proclaimed last year how Gurriel's hot streak in his all-star first half, and his great start this year should not matter since he ultimately declines. Now you are pumping up Varsho with his one excellent week.

I,m not so much into the trade debate.Just want Varsho to hit,so we can maybe win a chip.
He looks like he has corrected his backfoot flaw in his swing,and is swinging with a slight upswing.I expect them to bat him 5th from now on.He should tell Vlad to try the same type of swing slightly up.If Varsho does tail off again,then they,ll have to protect him again in the 8 slot.

the gold mine of receipts in this thread.

will moreno hit 6 HR this year? honest question.

Why can't we just look at this as a win both ways?

Varsho - .246 avg, 6 HR, 13 RBI, .316 OBP, .881 OPS + great defence

Gurriel Jr - .284 avg, 5 HR, 21 RBI, .341 OBP, .824 OPS

Moreno - .250 avg, 0 HR, 11 RBI, .366 OBP, .716 OPS + just 22 y/o

We're talking about three guys who are all performing well so far in 2024.

C Court wrote:Why can't we just look at this as a win both ways?

Varsho - .246 avg, 6 HR, 13 RBI, .316 OBP, .881 OPS + great defence

Gurriel Jr - .284 avg, 5 HR, 21 RBI, .341 OBP, .824 OPS

Moreno - .250 avg, 0 HR, 11 RBI, .316 OBP, .716 OPS + just 22 y/o

We're talking about three guys who are all performing well so far in 2024.

Funny how it directly mirrors the OG trade. All-world defender with inconsistent offence traded for two useful rotation pieces/prospects. Win-win.

give a listen to varshos dad talking about his son improvements , don matty assistance in off-season
on blair , insightful
dad was an outfield coach thats why hes so good

C Court wrote:Why can't we just look at this as a win both ways?

Varsho - .246 avg, 6 HR, 13 RBI, .316 OBP, .881 OPS + great defence

Gurriel Jr - .284 avg, 5 HR, 21 RBI, .341 OBP, .824 OPS

Moreno - .250 avg, 0 HR, 11 RBI, .366 OBP, .716 OPS + just 22 y/o

We're talking about three guys who are all performing well so far in 2024.

The Jays could have signed Lourdes if they wanted to this offseason, so I don't know why he (or his latest hot streak) would be included in any evaluation of it.

Bringing up the no-hit defensive specialist Moreno is fair game though.

Because Arizona traded for Gurriel Jr, who then agreed to re-sign with the Diamondbacks. He wasn’t a one season rental.

C Court wrote:Because Arizona traded for Gurriel Jr, who then agreed to re-sign with the Diamondbacks. He wasn’t a one season rental.

How does that not make him a one-season rental? The Jays traded one year of him to Arizona and Arizona then signed him as a free agent in December when anybody else could have signed him (including the Jays).

Randle McMurphy wrote:

C Court wrote:Because Arizona traded for Gurriel Jr, who then agreed to re-sign with the Diamondbacks. He wasn’t a one season rental.

How does that not make him a one-season rental? The Jays traded one year of him to Arizona and Arizona then signed him as a free agent in December when anybody else could have signed him (including the Jays).

Your mom must be so proud that her son thinks he’s the smartest guy on a baseball board. Quite the accomplishment.

C Court wrote:

Randle McMurphy wrote:

C Court wrote:Because Arizona traded for Gurriel Jr, who then agreed to re-sign with the Diamondbacks. He wasn’t a one season rental.

How does that not make him a one-season rental? The Jays traded one year of him to Arizona and Arizona then signed him as a free agent in December when anybody else could have signed him (including the Jays).

Your mom must be so proud that her son thinks he’s the smartest guy on a baseball board. Quite the accomplishment.

My mom has passed unfortunately, but I'm sure she would if she was still with us.

Randle McMurphy wrote:

C Court wrote:Because Arizona traded for Gurriel Jr, who then agreed to re-sign with the Diamondbacks. He wasn’t a one season rental.

How does that not make him a one-season rental? The Jays traded one year of him to Arizona and Arizona then signed him as a free agent in December when anybody else could have signed him (including the Jays).

I read an article last month that Gurriel turned down some teams that were offering a bit more money to stay in Arizona. He liked how the organization treated him, felt comfortable with the team and city, and enjoyed living in Arizona. He also got an opt out after 2 years to hit free agency again, so it worked out for both sides.

Mehar wrote:

Randle McMurphy wrote:

C Court wrote:Because Arizona traded for Gurriel Jr, who then agreed to re-sign with the Diamondbacks. He wasn’t a one season rental.

How does that not make him a one-season rental? The Jays traded one year of him to Arizona and Arizona then signed him as a free agent in December when anybody else could have signed him (including the Jays).

I read an article last month that Gurriel turned down some teams that were offering a bit more money to stay in Arizona. He liked how the organization treated him, felt comfortable with the team and city, and enjoyed living in Arizona. He also got an opt out after 2 years to hit free agency again, so it worked out for both sides.

That's fine, but regardless of any contract he signed we still only dealt one year of control on Lourdes to the DBacks. Same reason the NYY didn't have to kill their farm system to get one year of Soto. They were both rental players at the time they were dealt.