Cubs acquire Daniel Murphy from the Nationals

[BigAlBarampGrill]

Yes, it’s the same reason I don’t like Josh Hader. You trying to pull some “gotcha” deal on me here? You sure post a lot when people question/criticize the Cubs. Might I suggest a Cubs board?

 

I live on the border of Wisconsin and Illinois. I have many friends/family who are Cubs fans. I grew up in Wisconsin though, so always preferred the Brewers.

[PeaveyFury]

The Nats were .500 at the deadline, IIRC. How much return did they lose by foolishly hanging onto their impending FA's through the non-waiver deadline hoping to catch lightning in a bottle?

[illiniguy]

Yep, trading away this bum was the straw that broke the Cubs back. Without Kris Bryant they are having a better year than the Brewers. He gonna miss the next 7 as well?

 

I sure hope not - I hope he's around for all 7 and the Cubs wind up paying through their teeth for a guy with chronic shoulder problems. For all the love the young Cub position players get, reality this year is that aside from Baez this season (A Jim Hendry draft pick), the rest of them aren't proving to be special. Heck Kris Bryant's 2018 shell has a better season-long OPS than all of them aside from Baez. It's nice having them around to offset some of the stupid contracts currently on Cub books, but as these youngish, slightly above average position players start getting expensive, the assumption that they'll all be Cubs longterm is going to quickly prove foolish.

So you don't think Kris Bryant is a good baseball player? Do your family a favor and don't start betting.

[BigAlBarampGrill]

The Nats were .500 at the deadline, IIRC. How much return did they lose by foolishly hanging onto their impending FA's through the non-waiver deadline hoping to catch lightning in a bottle?

 

The Nats did the right thing even though I'm sure some of their fans thought it was a "slap in the face". They had some huge expectations to fill at the beginning of the season.

[TexasCheesehead]

This is a great move for the Cubs. I hate Daniel Murphy for his bigotry, but he’s a good hitter especially in Sept/Oct. Cubs got better for next to nothing. It does make you wonder if they believe Bryant has no chance of being 100% the rest of the way and will be always at risk of re-injuring the shoulder, needing Braun-like days off every week.

 

So you 'hate' Daniel Murphy for his "bigotry"? Isn't hating another person for their personal beliefs kind of hypocritical when all Murphy did was say he didn't agree with homosexuality. Not getting into a debate, this just seems painfully hypocritical of you judging his choice to judge someone else's choice (or nature, whatever side of the issue you're on...not getting into that).

[Fear The Chorizo]

Yep, trading away this bum was the straw that broke the Cubs back. Without Kris Bryant they are having a better year than the Brewers. He gonna miss the next 7 as well?

 

I sure hope not - I hope he's around for all 7 and the Cubs wind up paying through their teeth for a guy with chronic shoulder problems. For all the love the young Cub position players get, reality this year is that aside from Baez this season (A Jim Hendry draft pick), the rest of them aren't proving to be special. Heck Kris Bryant's 2018 shell has a better season-long OPS than all of them aside from Baez. It's nice having them around to offset some of the stupid contracts currently on Cub books, but as these youngish, slightly above average position players start getting expensive, the assumption that they'll all be Cubs longterm is going to quickly prove foolish.

So you don't think Kris Bryant is a good baseball player? Do your family a favor and don't start betting.

 

You are struggling to follow who posts what on this forum...stick to NSBB with bigal where you can just say horsefeathers and everyone smiles

[StearnBrewliever]

Why wouldn't Stearns claim anyone he possibly thought could get to the Cubs? Serious question

[MrTPlush]

Why wouldn't Stearns claim anyone he possibly thought could get to the Cubs? Serious question

 

Because if they get dumped on us we have to find a spot for them and pay them a lot of money for a month.

[StearnBrewliever]

I thought we could refuse a trade and then that team is stuck with the player? Like the dodgers did by claiming Harper with no intent to trade for him.

[MrTPlush]

I thought we could refuse a trade and then that team is stuck with the player? Like the dodgers did by claiming Harper with no intent to trade for him.

 

The Nationals were the ones who refused a trade and pulled Harper back. The Nationals could have dumped Harper (and his full salary on the Dodgers) if they so pleased. Obviously with Harper there was no way they were going to just let Harper go for nothing. With Murphy...maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't have. They essentially did.

[coolhandluke121]

 

If I liked gambling, I'd bet pretty good money on the Brewers having a better record than the Cubs over the next 7 years or so.

Yep, trading away this bum was the straw that broke the Cubs back. Without Kris Bryant they are having a better year than the Brewers. He gonna miss the next 7 as well?

 

I did say that I was surprised at the low prospect price and acknowledged that it was a weird time to criticize all their short-sighted moves, since this probably isn't one of them.

 

However, if you don't think the Cubs are compromising their future with some of the trades they've made and contracts they've signed over the last few years, I have to wonder what you've been paying attention to for the last decade or so. It doesn't work that way anymore. You can't just buy titles with free agents and rentals and without keeping a pipeline with your fair share of young talent. That strategy requires older players who are generally bad/terrible values now that they can't use PED's indiscriminately anymore.

 

They will still have some good players and be a solid team for a long time, but the Brewers had a similar nucleus in Braun, Fielder, Hart, Weeks, Hardy, Gallardo, et al and that core was basically .500 together because the Brewers did the same stupid stuff the Cubs are doing now. The extra money the Cubs have is just gonna make for a more impressive bonfire if they keep this up.

[Roderick]

The Nats were .500 at the deadline, IIRC. How much return did they lose by foolishly hanging onto their impending FA's through the non-waiver deadline hoping to catch lightning in a bottle?

 

Probably could have got something decent for Gio Gonzalez at the deadline, but 3 out of 4 of his August starts have been bad. 4 out of his last 6 starts have been bad going back to the Brewers game on 7/23.

[Roderick]

I thought we could refuse a trade and then that team is stuck with the player? Like the dodgers did by claiming Harper with no intent to trade for him.

 

The Nationals were the ones who refused a trade and pulled Harper back. The Nationals could have dumped Harper (and his full salary on the Dodgers) if they so pleased. Obviously with Harper there was no way they were going to just let Harper go for nothing. With Murphy...maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't have. They essentially did.

 

Do we know how much money the Cubs were sending the Nationals in the deal? Is there a league rule on how much cash can go in a trade (that isn't part of paying for a players contract)?

[coolhandluke121]

wut

 

ETA: Keep mortgaging that future though. Central will the Crew's for 5 years or more soon.

 

Seems like something somebody says when they get dumped while dating, to make themselves feel better. Chicago North has enough money to do whatever they want, so if their A and AA teams suck, it doesn't mean the Brewers will be winning anything at the MLB level.

 

Even the Yankees and Dodgers know they have to avoid severe luxury tax penalties to field a sustainably good team. Look how the Dodgers had to get Tampa Bay's GM to clean up the mess they made when Magic first bought a share of the team. At least the Dodgers stopped themselves before they traded guys like Seager and Bellinger though. Unfortunately for their fans, the Cubs did not.

 

Again, you don't just acquire every expensive veteran in sight and expect to have a good team anymore. Big markets still have a significant advantage, but not nearly as much as they did a decade ago. Without PED's, those rentals and free agents aren't good values anymore. Sometimes they're even worse than scrap heap guys (see Chatwood and Darvish vs. Guerra and Miley).

[bill hAll Star]

wut

 

ETA: Keep mortgaging that future though. Central will the Crew's for 5 years or more soon.

 

Seems like something somebody says when they get dumped while dating, to make themselves feel better. Chicago North has enough money to do whatever they want, so if their A and AA teams suck, it doesn't mean the Brewers will be winning anything at the MLB level.

 

Even the Yankees and Dodgers know they have to avoid severe luxury tax penalties to field a sustainably good team. Look how the Dodgers had to get Tampa Bay's GM to clean up the mess they made when Magic first bought a share of the team. At least the Dodgers stopped themselves before they traded guys like Seager and Bellinger though. Unfortunately for their fans, the Cubs did not.

 

Again, you don't just acquire every expensive veteran in sight and expect to have a good team anymore. Big markets still have a significant advantage, but not nearly as much as they did a decade ago. Without PED's, those rentals and free agents aren't good values anymore. Sometimes they're even worse than scrap heap guys (see Chatwood and Darvish vs. Guerra and Miley).

 

I think you're kinda convincing yourself that those teams always did the "every single expensive player" route as much as they did back in the day and that it's a terrible thing to have a 1-2 year down window.

 

Yes, there will be less 7 year/$230 million deals these days but these teams can still bully their way with shorter-term purchases.

 

Teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees that have built an army of young stud players from 1-2 years of trading away their last dynasty and a short tank can still just hammer the free agent market to fill any and all gaps in their roster. They can compete for a 5-10 year window, take 2 years off if they finally end up holding the bag on some older players, and start it all over again.

[coolhandluke121]

 

Even the Yankees and Dodgers know they have to avoid severe luxury tax penalties to field a sustainably good team. Look how the Dodgers had to get Tampa Bay's GM to clean up the mess they made when Magic first bought a share of the team. At least the Dodgers stopped themselves before they traded guys like Seager and Bellinger though. Unfortunately for their fans, the Cubs did not.

 

Again, you don't just acquire every expensive veteran in sight and expect to have a good team anymore. Big markets still have a significant advantage, but not nearly as much as they did a decade ago. Without PED's, those rentals and free agents aren't good values anymore. Sometimes they're even worse than scrap heap guys (see Chatwood and Darvish vs. Guerra and Miley).

 

I think you're kinda convincing yourself that those teams always did the "every single expensive player" route as much as they did back in the day and that it's a terrible thing to have a 1-2 year down window.

 

Yes, there will be less 7 year/$230 million deals these days but these teams can still bully their way with shorter-term purchases.

 

Teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees that have built an army of young stud players from 1-2 years of trading away their last dynasty and a short tank can still just hammer the free agent market to fill any and all gaps in their roster. They can compete for a 5-10 year window, take 2 years off if they finally end up holding the bag on some older players, and start it all over again.

 

We obviously differ on where the line is. I think it's usually gonna be more than just a couple down years when you screw up. There's also no guarantee whatsoever that you'll be able to replenish your farm before during those down years. The Yankees, Cubs, and Dodgers all drafted well, but they can't necessarily expect to repeat that success. We know that comes and goes, and they won't have great draft picks or pool money.

 

I just think the whole "big markets get to do whatever they want" attitude is completely overblown. Every time I've argued this, I've acknowledged that the big markets will generally have longer good cycles and shorter down cycles, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a team like the Brewers from being the better team for several years at a time or more if they're making smarter moves. The Angels, Rangers, Tigers, and Mets have spent a ton of money and neglected to add much talent from their own system over the last decade too, and there's nothing stopping the Cubs or Yankees from ending up like them if they're not careful.

[Boomer5]

The Cubs are in first place with a 2016 Ring while we are in third place with a farm system ranked in the 20’s.

 

Furthermore acquiring Murphy for little to nothing seems like smart business.

[bill hAll Star]

 

Even the Yankees and Dodgers know they have to avoid severe luxury tax penalties to field a sustainably good team. Look how the Dodgers had to get Tampa Bay's GM to clean up the mess they made when Magic first bought a share of the team. At least the Dodgers stopped themselves before they traded guys like Seager and Bellinger though. Unfortunately for their fans, the Cubs did not.

 

Again, you don't just acquire every expensive veteran in sight and expect to have a good team anymore. Big markets still have a significant advantage, but not nearly as much as they did a decade ago. Without PED's, those rentals and free agents aren't good values anymore. Sometimes they're even worse than scrap heap guys (see Chatwood and Darvish vs. Guerra and Miley).

 

I think you're kinda convincing yourself that those teams always did the "every single expensive player" route as much as they did back in the day and that it's a terrible thing to have a 1-2 year down window.

 

Yes, there will be less 7 year/$230 million deals these days but these teams can still bully their way with shorter-term purchases.

 

Teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees that have built an army of young stud players from 1-2 years of trading away their last dynasty and a short tank can still just hammer the free agent market to fill any and all gaps in their roster. They can compete for a 5-10 year window, take 2 years off if they finally end up holding the bag on some older players, and start it all over again.

 

We obviously differ on where the line is. I think it's usually gonna be more than just a couple down years when you screw up. There's also no guarantee whatsoever that you'll be able to replenish your farm before during those down years. The Yankees, Cubs, and Dodgers all drafted well, but they can't necessarily expect to repeat that success. We know that comes and goes, and they won't have great draft picks or pool money.

 

I just think the whole "big markets get to do whatever they want" attitude is completely overblown. Every time I've argued this, I've acknowledged that the big markets will generally have longer good cycles and shorter down cycles, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a team like the Brewers from being the better team for several years at a time or more if they're making smarter moves. The Angels, Rangers, Tigers, and Mets have spent a ton of money and neglected to add much talent from their own system over the last decade too, and there's nothing stopping the Cubs or Yankees from ending up like them if they're not careful.

 

Other than the Angels, the other 3 teams have all made a World Series appearance recently, the Rangers and Tigers having a pretty extended window. Throw the Giants in there who have overspent a bit as well and have gotten some really good results with maybe overextending it after a while.

 

Of course there's always going to be 25-50% of the larger markets in a downturn at any time. The problem is that doesn't matter too much to the Brewers. There are always going to be 2 or 3 NL large markets with a dominant team in the NL and 5-6 in the league at large.

 

The Red Sox, Yankees, probably Dodgers, probably Cubs all have probably 3 more years on this window. Maybe Sale/Bryant/Rizzo/DiDi/Severino/Judge/Kershaw/etc. either walk or regress soon...but all of those teams will have a lot of money to spend in 2020 or 2021 probably extending at least a decent team at the end of these runs.

[xisxisxis]

I just think the whole "big markets get to do whatever they want" attitude is completely overblown. Every time I've argued this, I've acknowledged that the big markets will generally have longer good cycles and shorter down cycles, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a team like the Brewers from being the better team for several years at a time or more if they're making smarter moves. The Angels, Rangers, Tigers, and Mets have spent a ton of money and neglected to add much talent from their own system over the last decade too, and there's nothing stopping the Cubs or Yankees from ending up like them if they're not careful.

I agree with most of what you said, but the highlighted part is the key. The Brewers can compete if they are smart. Unfortunately, where big markets have an advantage is in that they can afford mistakes, while the Brewers have little margin to make mistakes. As a recent example, the Schoop trade could be a mistake that we can't afford. If he doesn't return to the career numbers or exceeds them his 2019 salary makes it extremely difficult for the Brewers to fix other issues. If we non-tender him we've lost significant talent in the whole transaction. A big market team would have no issue with either keeping him and absorbing the salary or non-tendering and buying another 2B.

 

Smart means evaluating whether you are getting average or above average performance out of instructers/scouts/etc. It's been brought up that Gleybor Torres and Ozzie Albies have been terrific in MLB while their miLB numbers weren't as impressive. Is that luck? or were they coached well? If you look at their advanced stats they are totally different hitters in the majors compared to the minors. Does that mean the Yankees and Braves have excellent hitting coaches? Didn't Aaron Judge exceed expectations based on his minors performance? Both players need to be successful past this year to be more than a fluke, but do we have the right personnel to be successful with developing our prospects. Because we absolutely have to be if we are going to be a smart team. Every indication is that Derick Johnson is a very good pitching coach, where's the data on Darnell Coles?

 

Because, these deadline deals aren't going to be keys to the Brewers future if we can't maximize our player development pipeline. Sure, deadline deals are often necessary due to injury, but if that's not the case, then your patching up mistakes that were made the previous winter.

[coolhandluke121]

I just think the whole "big markets get to do whatever they want" attitude is completely overblown. Every time I've argued this, I've acknowledged that the big markets will generally have longer good cycles and shorter down cycles, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a team like the Brewers from being the better team for several years at a time or more if they're making smarter moves. The Angels, Rangers, Tigers, and Mets have spent a ton of money and neglected to add much talent from their own system over the last decade too, and there's nothing stopping the Cubs or Yankees from ending up like them if they're not careful.

I agree with most of what you said, but the highlighted part is the key. The Brewers can compete if they are smart. Unfortunately, where big markets have an advantage is in that they can afford mistakes, while the Brewers have little margin to make mistakes.

 

True but that can work to your advantage some times. You have a built-in excuse for not signing guys like Darvish or trading for Sonny Gray, whereas big markets are tempted to. Sometimes lack of access is the best thing to keep you off a drug.

[coolhandluke121]

The Angels, Rangers, Tigers, and Mets have spent a ton of money and neglected to add much talent from their own system over the last decade too, and there's nothing stopping the Cubs or Yankees from ending up like them if they're not careful.

 

Other than the Angels, the other 3 teams have all made a World Series appearance recently, the Rangers and Tigers having a pretty extended window. Throw the Giants in there who have overspent a bit as well and have gotten some really good results with maybe overextending it after a while.

 

 

Sure, but I wasn't saying that they're not generally going to make the playoffs more often and go further, on average, than small market teams. I was saying that the downswings often last much longer than just a year or two. That probably doesn't start for the Cubs for a few years, but I still believe the Brewers are setting themselves up to be the better team in the long run. I think Cubs have made some godawful decisions in recent years.

[xisxisxis]

I just think the whole "big markets get to do whatever they want" attitude is completely overblown. Every time I've argued this, I've acknowledged that the big markets will generally have longer good cycles and shorter down cycles, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a team like the Brewers from being the better team for several years at a time or more if they're making smarter moves. The Angels, Rangers, Tigers, and Mets have spent a ton of money and neglected to add much talent from their own system over the last decade too, and there's nothing stopping the Cubs or Yankees from ending up like them if they're not careful.

I agree with most of what you said, but the highlighted part is the key. The Brewers can compete if they are smart. Unfortunately, where big markets have an advantage is in that they can afford mistakes, while the Brewers have little margin to make mistakes.

 

True but that can work to your advantage some times. You have a built-in excuse for not signing guys like Darvish or trading for Sonny Gray, whereas big markets are tempted to. Sometimes lack of access is the best thing to keep you off a drug.

Very true, but our experience with not so smart management is that instead of going for the name brand drug (Darvish/Gray) the Brewers go for the generic brand (Suppan/Looper) and end up with massive side effects...

[MrTPlush]

Very true, but our experience with not so smart management is that instead of going for the name brand drug (Darvish/Gray) the Brewers go for the generic brand (Suppan/Looper) and end up with massive side effects...

 

Braden Looper was a one year deal that costed very little. Jeff Suppan didn't really make sense before or after.

 

Better examples for going with the generic brand would be Lohse, Wolf, and Garza. I would say 2/3 of those worked out pretty well which is nothing to sneeze at considering how bad some of the pitcher as that age/tier can be. Definitely better to avoid going after those guys, but it is what we had to do at the time.

[monty57]

The Cubs made themselves better at little cost. That seems to obviously be a good move for them, and will make it a little harder for the Brewers to catch them. The Cubs have sold off a lot of future talent over the past few years, but this move isn't in that category. It's hard to criticize picking up MLB talent for next to nothing.

[tmwiese55]

The Cubs have made mistakes but with Rizzo/Bryan/Baez/Contreras effectively controlled for years and in their prime there is no reason the Cubs won't be a contender for the next 5 years. They'll have to keep paying for pitching and not strike out on their next P moves but they're not close to all of a sudden having a 3-4 stretch below .500. Once those guys exit their prime, get hurt, etc that's different. Now, looking at the Brewers set up they should be a .500+ team the next five years as well but it's impossible to predict beyond that so I have no idea. But given their higher level stars controlled in their prime combined with financial advantages I'd guess the Cubs are better set up and more likely to win divisions/titles than us.

 

That said, I generally agree with the theme that just blowing money is not the winning strategy it used to be. Of course the Red Sox, Yanks, and LAD make the playoffs more than anyone else and their payroll allows more consistency but it's really tough to build powerhouses by just buying 31 yr olds and overpaying them. Essentially I think that lesson has been learned by everyone as evidenced by last offseason. That includes the big markets, now that they also know it's dumb they're going to be smarter with their money and prospects going forward.

 

And this specific move cost them literally nothing for the future, just a bit of money which they have plenty of.