Darvish

[veryzer]

Why did we trade Darvish? I was on hiatus from baseball for most of the past year, so I missed out on the reason we traded him. I understood letting Lester go, his tank is just about empty. And I understood trading Schwarber, he never turned the corner. But why Darvish? And why replace Schwarber with Pedersen? What gives?

[MrSheps]

Hey man! My read is there was a time in which the Ricketts were basically crying poverty, so the front office was forced to pivot to some cost cutting measures. Darvish was traded for Davies and some very young, and thus risky, but high ceiling talent, and non-tendered Schwarber.  Fast forward a month or so and suddenly the announcement of butts in the seats at Wrigley changed the forecast for the poor, put-upon owners, who released some funds allowing the front office add Joc to replace Schwarbs.

 

There's an argument that Pederson is very similar and even a slight upgrade over Schwarber, but I don't think it was like a plan the Cubs had. He sort of fell into their laps and pushed for the move himself, identifying the Cubs as a team who could use him and where he'd get a chance to play everyday. I'm not sure how how the FO has positioned the Darvish deal, but I don't get the sense it was a move they make if not for payroll concerns at the time.

[jstraw]

I think shedding Darvish was in anticipation of this team sucking this season and a planned fire sale. I don't think anyone would be worried about the Darvish trade if the team wasn't competitive.

[jeffy]

I took most of last year off too, but I seem to recall that the return for Darvish seemed kind of mediocre, or no?



I've warmed up to Joc for the most part. Always thought he was a clown in LA, which he still is, but he's fun to watch, and he also clobbers baseballs. I loved Schwarbs, but I feel like I'd take Joc over Schwarbs at this point if you put a gun to my head.

[1060Ivy]

Darvish deal was simply Ricketts over extended on his Wrigleyville real estate and media empires so removed the most costly - and talented - player from the roster and sold him for Zach Davies and a handful of magic beans (4 teenaged / near teenaged prospects). . Compared to Padres deal for Blake Snell, less talented than Darvish, Cubs got fleeced. Not to be outfleeced, the Cubs included Caratini in deal



Deal was simply about cutting Cubs payroll

[rok]

Saving money while (possibly) selling high to replenish a farm system that badly needed talent (without the return).

[Butcher]

Aren't the Cubs paying part of Darvish's salary, too? We got totally fucked on that deal.

 

Also...TOMMY!!! Good to see you, you beautiful bastard!!!

[veryzer]

Feels like the Tribune all over again.





And good to be seen, old friend.

[Auz]

Welcome back old friend...

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

Feels like the Tribune all over again.





And good to be seen, old friend.

I got my wish . . .

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

Aren't the Cubs paying part of Darvish's salary, too? We got totally fucked on that deal.

 

Also...TOMMY!!! Good to see you, you beautiful bastard!!!

I mean, only 3 million. The Padres are on the hook for over 60 million more.

[funkster]

I'm not convinced we didn't a good return.  My gut says the FO really liked those prospects, we will see.  I think it's basically what Straw said, they anticipated this team to suck and sell off.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

Whereas you anticipated Straw to sell and suck off.

[funkster]

And to fuck off!

 

At the end of the day i'm done litigating the Darvish trade, it happened and there's nothing we can do about it.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

I think that the Darvish trade underscores how much weight MLB FOs give to pitcher age and contracts (and to controllable top prospects). It seems ludicrous to us to see a pitcher of Darvish's talent not fetch a top-50 guy at least, but the trend among GMs has increasingly been to see pitchers in their mid-30s, no matter how good they are, as ticking time bombs.

 

While I'm sure we'd all agree that, straight up, Darvish is better than Snell, it's important to remember that Snell DID win a CY with a lights-out performance in 2018. Plus, he's younger and cheaper--and thus deemed more likely to provide value on his remaining contract.

 

All that said, I wish Darvish were still on the Cubs.