2023 Trade Deadline

[gehringer_2]

45 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

If he does well the rest of the way, opts in and then gets traded for less than market value, I will be one of the people criticizing Harris.  

Unfortunately, the two things likely go together: If he opts in it will be because his agent informs him that he is considered damaged goods around the league, in which case the Tigers will be hard pressed to get anything for him in trade either.

Best play for Det is he opts in, pitches decently in '24 and the tigers move him either during 24 season or that off-season with 2yr of control left. That would be a trade that might yield something good.

Either way I don't want to see them pay anything to buy back his option.

Edited August 6, 2023 by gehringer_2

[SoCalTiger]

56 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

If he does well the rest of the way, opts in and then gets traded for less than market value, I will be one of the people criticizing Harris.  

With all due respect and acknowleding you know way more baseball than me I will be cheering. Despite recognizing my "understanding" of what went down could be incorrect I am done with him. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by SoCalTiger

[Tiger337]

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Unfortunately, the two things likely go together: If he opts in it will be because his agent informs him that he is considered damaged goods around the league, in which case the Tigers will be hard pressed to get anything for him in trade either.

Best play for Det is he opts in, pitches decently in '24 and the tigers move him either during 24 season or that off-season with 2yr of control left. That would be a trade that might yield something good.

Either way I don't want to see them pay anything to buy back his option.

He's a solid left-handed starter.  That is one of the most valuable products in sports.  I really doubt he is damaged goods.  If he continues to pitch well and the option is out of the way, he won't be difficult to trade for market value.  

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

If he continues to pitch well and the option is out of the way, he won't be difficult to trade for market value.  

RIght, but in that case he's opting out so the Tigers will not be trading him - that's what I meant by the linkage. It's heads you win, Tails I lose for the Tigers with ERod.

[Tenacious D]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

He's a solid left-handed starter.  That is one of the most valuable products in sports.  I really doubt he is damaged goods.  If he continues to pitch well and the option is out of the way, he won't be difficult to trade for market value.  

I agree.  Too many hurt feelings here.  He’s easily a top 40 starting pitcher in the majors. On our team, only Skubal is close in talent (maybe Jobe at some point).

In free agency, we’d easily and gladly extend a 4 yr/$80M contract to someone similar to replace him.

This is all moot, though, as I think ERod will opt out.

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

He's a solid left-handed starter.  That is one of the most valuable products in sports.  I really doubt he is damaged goods.  If he continues to pitch well and the option is out of the way, he won't be difficult to trade for market value.  

That is fine.  Fans don't have to like all the same players.  I disliked Pudge Rodriguez after he quit on the team a couple of times.  I don't care if he opts out or gets traded.  What I disagreed with was the idea that he would be traded for below market value if he does opt in.  I don't think that would be a good outcome.  

[Tenacious D]

I don’t think enough has been said about the fact that the Tigers were trading Jake Rogers (Jason Beck has said as much, which is why Sands was dispatched to Pennsylvania).

It would appear that no major league ready catcher was coming back. To me, it suggests that the Tigers don’t necessarily view him as their catcher of the near future.  Might be an area they address this offseason.

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

I don’t think enough has been said about the fact that the Tigers were trading Jake Rogers (Jason Beck has said as much, which is why Sands was dispatched to Pennsylvania).

It would appear that no major league ready catcher was coming back. To me, it suggests that the Tigers don’t necessarily view him as their catcher of the near future.  Might be an area they address this offseason.

Rogers is fine for now.  There is no need to move him, but he's 28 so I don't think he is someone to build around either.  We'll probably never know who was was coming back in the trade, but Roriguez and Rogers really should have brought back a couple of top prospects.  

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

To me, it suggests that the Tigers don’t necessarily view him as their catcher of the near future.

also suggests they are happy to tank the rest of the season.

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Rogers is fine for now.  There is no need to move him, but he's 28 so I don't think he is someone to build around either.  We'll probably never know who was was coming back in the trade, but Roriguez and Rogers really should have brought back a couple of top prospects.  

Under Avila, I think you could argue that a big problem for the Tiger org was letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. To at least some degree, the Tigers persuauded themselves  a bunch of players either weren't worth keeping or paying because they thought weren't the ideal they wanted. You can put Paredes, Iglesias, JD, Castellanos, Adames, Suarez, Smiley, Alex A., Robbie Ray, Candelario all in that catagory to a more or less extent where they moved a player but got worse at the position.

I hope they aren't about to do the same with Jake.

Edited August 6, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I also doubt that move would be unanimously supported within the organization.  Trading him at market value at the next trading deadline would be a different story.  Settling for less because you feel disrespected seems like a loser move.  

Ultimately, I think he'll opt out.  

I’d bet there’s more to it than just that, but I’d be willing to agree to disagree. 

[buddha]

what's market value for rodriguez?

[Tiger337]

45 minutes ago, buddha said:

what's market value for rodriguez?

Money or players?  I think he is worth more than the 3/45 remaining on his contract.  In terms of players, I'm not good at that.  It always seems to me like the teams getting prospects don't do as well as they should.  However, I think once the option is removed his value would go up quite a bit.  

[LongLiveMaroth]

Dombrowski on the Lorenzen trade via The Athletic

 

So how long did it take, once the Phillies had actively decided to target Lorenzen? Dombrowski said they “engaged the Tigers about a week in advance of when we made the trade.” At that point, the Tigers’ president of brball operations, Scott Harris, gave the Phillies a list of prospects his team wanted back. The Phillies’ answer: A hard no.

Dombrowski didn’t identify those players. But he did tell reporters last week that the Phillies turned down every club that asked about its most highly regarded young players — pitchers Andrew Painter, Mick Abel and Griff McGarry, and center fielders Johan Rojas (already in the big leagues) and Justin Crawford. It’s an excellent assumption that the Tigers asked for players on that list.

But it wasn’t only Dombrowski and Harris who were working on this trade. One of Dombrowski’s special assistants, David Chadd, spent years working for the Tigers before joining the Phillies last fall. So he and a friend he’d worked with for years — the Tigers’ vice president for player personnel, Scott Bream — stayed in constant communication.

 

“He and David Chadd … I would say they might have had 100 texts between them back and forth,” Dombrowski said. “And then Scott and I, I’d say, had a handful — a half-dozen — over the last three, four days as far as getting this done, and then really, it narrowed down the last day.”

But even when they reached the final hours last Tuesday, it still took until “the middle of the afternoon” to come to an agreement, Dombrowski said, “because even early in the morning, the (asking prices) were different and he asked for a couple of people (the Phillies weren’t going to give up).”

“And then they finally narrowed it down to say, OK, let push come to shove,” he said. “I knew they really liked Lee. We like Lee. We really didn’t want to trade him. But again, you have to give to get. And that’s when we finally were able to consummate the trade.”

Edited August 8, 2023 by LongLiveMaroth

[RandyMarsh]

Dombrowski has a pretty good track record of keeping the prospects that pan out and trading the ones that don't so that worries me a bit but nobody's perfect(ie Eugenio Suarez) so maybe this will be another one of those rare times he gets rid of the wrong guy.

Edited August 8, 2023 by RandyMarsh

[oblong]

Dombrowski gave Chadd a life boat?

 

[SoCalTiger]

Willy Adames 

[chasfh]

22 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

Willy Adames 

Also, Eugenio Suarez, Robbie Ray, and Avisail Garcia, who are all in the middle of good big league careers right now.

Might as well add to the list Cody Ross, Jair Jurrjens, Matt Joyce, Curt Casali, Corey Knebel, Jose Alvarez, and Devon Travis, all of whom had success at the big league level with other organizations, some quite a bit,  after we traded them for either rentals or garbage.

This is not to say that Dombrowski never made any trades that he won—I won't add Cameron Maybin or Andrew Miller to this list for obvious reasons—but it's not as though he kept all the good prospects and traded away only the flotsam. His record is mixed, at best, probably in line with other GMs of similar stature.

[oblong]

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Also, Eugenio Suarez, Robbie Ray, and Avisail Garcia, who are all in the middle of good big league careers right now.

Might as well add to the list Cody Ross, Jair Jurrjens, Matt Joyce, Curt Casali, Corey Knebel, Jose Alvarez, and Devon Travis, all of whom had success at the big league level with other organizations, some quite a bit,  after we traded them for either rentals or garbage.

This is not to say that Dombrowski never made any trades that he won—I won't add Cameron Maybin or Andrew Miller to this list for obvious reasons—but it's not as though he kept all the good prospects and traded away only the flotsam. His record is mixed, at best, probably in line with other GMs of similar stature.

and in some of those cases we traded decent players for decent players who played a different position, like Joyce for Edwin Jackson. That's how it's supposed to work.  I wonder if moves like that help future moves for your org because it creates an impression. "They have good players" type of thing.  In other words if you "win" every prospect side by dealing prospects who don't pan out do other organizations begin to question your system?  Is it better long term to maybe not "win" so many of the deals where you obtain MLB players for your prospects?

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

and in some of those cases we traded decent players for decent players who played a different position, like Joyce for Edwin Jackson. That's how it's supposed to work.  I wonder if moves like that help future moves for your org because it creates an impression. "They have good players" type of thing.  In other words if you "win" every prospect side by dealing prospects who don't pan out do other organizations begin to question your system?  Is it better long term to maybe not "win" so many of the deals where you obtain MLB players for your prospects?

Edwin Jackson might have been the best return of all of these, pitching over 200 All-Star innings for us, and we did flip him as the second piece of the three-teamer that returned Austin Jackson and Max Scherzer, a trade he was definitely competitive on.

[Edman85]

To paraphrase Earl Weaver, Dombrowski won more than he lost, pal. I would go so far as to say if you put Dombrowski's Tigers era trades under a microscope, the net value returned will come out near the top of any GM's term ever for any team in the modern era. That is a lot of work to prove though. 

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

To paraphrase Earl Weaver, Dombrowski won more than he lost, pal. I would go so far as to say if you put Dombrowski's Tigers era trades under a microscope, the net value returned will come out near the top of any GM's term ever for any team in the modern era. That is a lot of work to prove though. 

OTOH - I think if you look at the salary inflation to accept high priced players in return for low priced players that analysis would be somewhat tempered. Adding money at every turn is a good way to grease the wheels for 'good' trades. But the cost of talent matters if it means that X yrs later the team finds itself in a total retrenchment.

Edited August 8, 2023 by gehringer_2

[RatkoVarda]

39 minutes ago, oblong said:

and in some of those cases we traded decent players for decent players who played a different position, like Joyce for Edwin Jackson. That's how it's supposed to work.  I wonder if moves like that help future moves for your org because it creates an impression. "They have good players" type of thing.  In other words if you "win" every prospect side by dealing prospects who don't pan out do other organizations begin to question your system?  Is it better long term to maybe not "win" so many of the deals where you obtain MLB players for your prospects?

to me "winning" a trade means you improved your team.

and the other side does not have to lose for you to win.

regardless of what Parades and the comp pick draftee did, if Austin Meadows simply put up his career average performance the last 2 years, that would have been a win for Detroit

[RandyMarsh]

I also look at some of his post Red Sox trades notably the Sale trade. He made sure he kept Devers but gave up Moncada(the then number 1 prospect) and Kopech one of the best pitching prospects.

Both have had their moments but they haven't been the elite hitter that Devers has. 

[gehringer_2]

22 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

to me "winning" a trade means you improved your team.

and the other side does not have to lose for you to win.

regardless of what Parades and the comp pick draftee did, if Austin Meadows simply put up his career average performance the last 2 years, that would have been a win for Detroit

This one was a black swan. Just chalk it up to bad luck.