Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 497: The Trade Deadline Desperation Index

Episode Date: July 22, 2014

Ben and Sam banter about Andrelton Simmons’ defense and stars playing through injuries, then assess how willing each contender should be to make a major move.

Tomorrow is the future. We must make it safe and happy for the children of tomorrow. They will lead us on. Good morning and welcome to episode 497 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from BaseballPerspectives.com, presented by the Play Index at Baseball Reference. I'm Sam Miller of Baseball Perspectives, and he is Ben Lindberg of Grantland. How are you, Ben? Very well, thank you. Excellent. I wonder if us not working together will improve the banter segments or the opposite. I don't know. We still G-chat all the time and do a podcast every day. Not as much, though.

Pretty much the same as before. Not quite as much. All right. So should I just go right into the topic of the day? I have a little bit of banter. Did you see the Andrelton Simmons play? No, I didn't. I saw a tweet about it and realized that I've been falling behind on my Andrelton Simmons. Okay, well let's do another

edition of Ben Sam's Sam video. Sam watches it live while everyone listens. I usually do love you and I don't generally disagree on Anderson Simmons. No. Disagree about flips made by other

players but not Simmons. Flips made by other players and generally I think we disagree on anything where the guy where it's impressive because the guy catches it at the end of his range and that's it. That's where it's impressive because the guy catches it at the end of his range, and that's it. That's why it's impressive.

He ran a long ways and caught it at the end of his range because knowing the range itself is what would make that play. This is a really bad commercial for a chicken sandwich. Get past that eventually. All right, here we go. Okay. Left-handed batter, ground ball. You might have to see the replay to appreciate it.

Certainly will, yeah. It was quick. It reminds me of when you did your article about Andrelton Simmons' plays. There was one gif you included where you showed him, like, doing the worm off the ground in the process of making a play, and it looked like it defied physics and this kind of looks like that so the ball was hit to shortstop but he was in motion toward the toward the third base shortstop hole and then the ball was hit closer to second base so he had to change his trajectory, stop, and then glove the ball

and do this crazy flip to get the force out at second and contorted himself in a way that you don't often see. Yeah, it's a nice play. The thing that always strikes me about Angleton Simmons' kind of more creative plays, I mean, obviously he has the great arm, he has good range, he's smooth, he's got good actions. He makes good plays like everybody makes good plays. But every, you know, three weeks or so, he makes some play that involves creativity where you just don't see a body move that way. And I'm always struck by how good his sort of body control and body awareness is. Like in that play, the momentum of the play, the momentum of his body in stabbing the ball

would lead, I think, most of us to turn the other way and then do a sort of sprawl for the bag, a diving sprawl for the bag. And he doesn't do that. He stops his momentum and then takes the shorter route to the bag, which is staying faced forward. And that's a really hard play to do. I mean, it takes tremendous, I assume, nobody's made that play. How would I know if that's a hard play to make? Literally nobody in history has ever done that with their body. But it seems like it

would take a lot of core strength and balance. But more than anything, it just sort of takes knowing precisely the most efficient route to the bag. And I'm always surprised when you really break down a great Simmons play how there is an efficiency of motion that he always takes, on these creative plays specifically, he always takes the step right where it needs to be in order for him to shift his momentum right how it needs to go in order for him to clear the runner right when he needs to be in order for him to shift his momentum right how it needs to go in order for him to clear

the runner right when he needs to do it and get the most um on his throw or whatever the case may be so i do like this play i expected him to throw the runner out at first from his bum and so i was slightly disappointed by that part yeah sorry maybe i built it up too much. Just by saying that it was a Simmons play, I raised expectations pretty high. So I was scanning the headlines before we started recording, as I often do, to see if Ryan Webb finished a game or Casey McGee hit a home run, which he did over the weekend. And there was a theme to the headlines i saw and it was players playing through injuries and suffering for it it was matt kane who has been placed on the disabled list and it was revealed last week that he has been pitching through a cranky elbow since spring training he didn't

talk about it he said i'm feeling like i'm feeling, but maybe that has something to do with his disappointing season. There was another headline about Shinsu Chu and how he regrets playing through his ankle injury, which he suffered on April 21st. And he has been limited by that since. And he said, I made a bad decision. I should have had more rest instead of trying to come back as soon as possible. And then there was Cliff Lee, who returned from the disabled list and didn't pitch great. And he's another guy who, like Kane, was pitching through elbow issues for quite some time before he was finally placed on the disabled list. What is it going to take, do you think, to stop the scourge of players playing through injuries and suffering for it?

I feel like we need an afternoon special or something where a player plays through injuries and there's a moral of the story that he shouldn't have done that. So do we know that these players were playing through injuries without their training staff's knowledge? No, we don't, actually. In this case, it might be just the opposite, I think, in these specific instances. We have talked in the past about cases where the team didn't know either, but in these cases, it seems like they did,

which I don't know whether that makes it better or worse or shifts the blame from one party to another. Makes it better or worse? Or shifts the blame from one party to another? Well, it's all just, you know, we're just making it up as we go along. Everybody is. You do your best. I mean, nobody's trying to lose the best years of their lives.

So, I don't know. I mean, I have used this analogy before, but if you never miss a flight, you're getting to the airport too early. If nobody ever plays through an injury and then gets hurt, then people probably aren't playing through enough injuries. I mean, there's a line between pain and injury that isn't always clear and stark. So I don't know. I mean, if the training staff certainly knows more than you and I do in this case. So as long as the training staff's aware of it and there's not this pattern of all the Phillies players playing through injuries and then getting hurt or all the Giants players or all the Rangers players or anything, I would generally say no big deal.

Yeah. I mean, you can see why it happens the giants have been a good team and don't have a lot of starting pitching depth and so you can see why kane would want to keep going out there and of course everyone on the rangers has been hurt so you can see why chew wouldn't want to take time off and maybe even a diminished chew would be better than than the next available option. So I guess it's...

And Lee's an old man who's talked about retiring young. So I guess it's better than the non-disclosure case. So maybe it's progress. Yeah. Yeah. Or just a random grouping of headlines that are slightly similar to each other by chance alone. That could be also. And the other headline I saw at Hardball Talk was a sad one for Sam Miller.

The Blue Jays designated Sergio Santos for a sign. That is a sad one, yeah. I thought about writing about that. Actually, nobody would read it is that more or less sad than chris medlin getting hurt um more sad i guess i don't know in a way it's it's much at this point it's much less surprising santos hasn't been good uh but i chose medlin because I thought he'd be good. I chose Santos because I wanted him to be good. So I guess in that sense, the general failure of Sergio Santos this year is probably slightly more troubling. Okay. Proceed to your topic. I, um, you're going to have to bear with me, uh, on this. I'm going to have to explain my thinking. So I was on Jonah Carey's podcast on Monday and I was trying to very clumsily, by the

way, if anybody ever wants to hear me speak about, uh, real baseball topics that I have not been prepped on, uh, and, uh, um, uh, try to make it through long, uh, paragraphs on such topics, you can do that. Um, I don't know how it turned out. Uh, I was, um, essentially, uh, when I start talking about baseball in such context, I have to basically hold my breath and I, uh, like I sort of stopped breathing because I don't know if I'm going to make to the end of the paragraph. And so it's like, I'm swimming underwater for a really long time. Cause I don't know if there'm going to make it to the end of the paragraph. So it's like I'm swimming underwater for a really long time because I don't know if there's an end to that cave.

So midway through the paragraph, my brain starts losing oxygen and I quit hearing what I'm saying. So I actually have no idea how these things go. I tried. And so anyway, you can go listen to it. But at one point, I was trying to um my feelings on the brewers as a trade deadline candidate uh and uh so i i didn't do a great job of articulating it and so then as i was walking later tonight i was sort of thinking about it on this scale and so uh so here's the

here's basically where where i was thinking of it as. So say you want to trade for a player because you consider yourself a contender. I'm going to say that all players fit into categories. We'll name them 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. One is basically a bad reliever or a fifth outfielder or a bench bat basically a guy who's nothing you know replacement level veteran more or less uh so that's a one five isn't is an ace five is an mvp candidate five is a star uh three is an average player two is basically like a a you know a bad starting pitcher or a pretty good fourth outfielder second division uh uh outfielder uh you know, a bad starting pitcher or a pretty good fourth outfielder slash second division outfielder, you know, Lugie would be a two and then a four would basically be like an all-star

level player, you know, a Shane Victorino, a hundred pence kind of a thing. So one, two, three, four, five. So I think that, and this map is not to scale, but let's say that you can get a one basically for a one. You can trade, if you need a one, if you decide all your team needs this year is a one, you can get a one by giving up basically a one's worth of talent. You trade your one for their one, okay? If you want a two, you have to give up a little more, but it's not linear. It's not that you have to give up a two. You now have to give up, in my way of thinking of it, sort of like you need to give up a two next year and a two the year after. You

have to give up two years' worth of twos, more or less. If you want a three, you have to give up three years' worth of threes because you're giving up better prospects, more prospects, and this is a nonlinear return. It's very hard to get a superstar in July. So five, you basically would give up 25 units to get your five, and you would deem it necessary because this is your year. Flags fly forever. You really need this part, and you're willing to sacrifice Jeff Bagwell or John Smoltz as a prospect in order to get your Doyle Alexander. So that's kind of my thinking.

Now, obviously, not to scale, but that sort of makes sense, right? So if you're a team that sees itself as, you know, maybe this year you're kind of in contention, but you're not super in contention, or you are super in contention, but next year is really your year. Basically, like last year's pirates saw themselves. You might consider yourselves only in the market for ones. You're not willing to give up that high price for guys quite yet. Whereas if you're a team that's old, is about to rebuild anyway, it's the last year before your Hall of Fame manager retires or something like that, then you might be in the market even for a five. It

might be worthwhile for you to get a five, but a five is going to be really, really expensive. So it's always this balance between how important this year is to you and how important being competitive in the next few years is to you, right? So that makes sense? I think so. I mean, I'd like to say we're saying that the better the player that you are targeting, trying to acquire, the less efficient the acquisition is in a sense. Like if you were to compare historically trades that were made for bad players and for good players, that you are asserting that the wins, the number of wins on each end of that deal would be more lopsided for the the better player trades i am asserting that and i'm asserting that the the lopsidedness comes kind of further out in the future so you're much more likely to give up for instance an addison russell uh you're gonna and you're gonna have to give up an Addison Russell, a guy who, you know, conceivably, look, the A's could win this trade,

and they could also have just given up a player who produces 25 wins before he hits free agency, right? Both of those things are true. And so lopsided in one way of looking at it, yes. However, the A's decided they needed, you know, what I would say in this context would be a four and a three, and so maybe you put those together and that's a five. They made a five move. And for that, they gave up, you know, a five return. You know, fifth or sixth best prospect in the game,

which is unheard of to move that guy, especially at trade deadline, especially in this era. So yes, that's what I'm saying. Okay. Okay. So the reason that I was thinking about this is because I was trying to express, I was trying to articulate that the Brewers strike me as a team that even though I don't particularly like them that much this year, I think they're more or less a 500 team going forward, I don't think that they have a particularly good future in the near term,

and so I wouldn't be that sad about them feeling like this was their – they fluked their way into a window, and they better take advantage of it. I don't know that I'd put them at a five for that reason, but I'd be more eager to see them make a move than I would if they had the number two farm system in baseball. And they were way into this. Who knows if they could make a five. Right.

They might not have the system to make a five. They probably don't. But, you know, anyway. So the Brewers, though, to me would be a team that because of that, I could talk myself into like a four range for them. They have a real strong incentive to play for this year and less incentive to hold things back for the next few years. So I just wanted to go through the contenders and see what number you'd put on each of those. Is that fair?

Yes. All right. So there's 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15. That's too many. There's so many teams that are still in it. 16 teams over 25%. So I guess, let's see, we'll make the cutoff 30%. That pulls it down to 14 teams. All right. So less than half the league.

Barely. But I want the Yankees in there. So 28% is the cutoff. All right. All right. Dodgers. Okay. Dodgers. So I guess I'd put them at a...

I could see them making a, don't know like a 4 move maybe because they're they're kind of I don't know they're in a spot where they don't have a great system but they're also very good right now and in fact

maybe I'd go to 5 just because they're the Dodgers and can spend as much money as they want maybe they're just an five just because they're the Dodgers and can spend as much money as they want. Maybe they're just an automatic five. Maybe they're always a five. So that when a Jack Peterson comes along or someone like that who would certainly be a good Dodger and would be someone who would fit well on their roster in certain ways in the future, but they can always sign the best available outfielder,

even if there aren't as many star-free agents available in the typical offseason now as there once were. So maybe if you're the Dodgers and you're really good right now and you expect to continue to be really good because you have a pretty good talent base and a very high payroll, maybe you're an automatic five. Yeah, I think that I'd consider them a five just because the Giants have put so much pressure on them. In the season we expected, they had a four or five game lead at this point. And in that case,

I wouldn't have put them on a five. I would have said just getting to a full series is enough of a victory that they don't need to necessarily mortgage anything. But considering that it could be a real dogfight and the Giants put a lot of pressure on them, I would also say they're a five. So Giants. Giants, I'll say that they, again, I don't know that they're necessarily capable of a five move, but I think they're kind of in the position where I wouldn't say they've lucked into contending, but they've maybe lucked a little bit into coming closer than we expected them to. They're better than they were generally expected to be. So maybe at least a four?

Yeah, they haven't really developed a whole lot in the last three years and they don't look like they're going to develop a whole lot in the next three years. In 2010, enough of their core was young and under cost control that it looked like, okay, they had a real serious five-year window with the group that they had. And there's like a couple, you know, another year or two of that window, but then really nothing coming after that. They've shown that they can make smart moves, but now they really have, the pressure is on them to make smart moves. They have to assume that they're going to make a lot of smart moves if they're going to keep this pretty good run going beyond 2015 or so. I would imagine that they – I would say that they should be realistic about the chance that 2016 might suck regardless and just go ahead and play for it.

So I would say that they're probably a four if they can pull it off. All right, Cardinals. Hmm, okay. probably a four if they can pull it off yeah uh all right cardinals hmm okay uh cardinals maybe uh maybe a three they've they've uh let's see the cardinals playoff odds or their division odds now are just about 50 50 coming into monday of course, they've got tons of young talent. But they've also got... And so they don't have to make a major move necessarily, but they also have so much talent

that maybe they have the ability to trade a good player and not really suffer for it if they have a weakness at a certain position where they don't have a young guy they can just slot in so i'll say i'll say three i i there's a there's been a little bit less um kind of momentum on the cardinals train lately um and you know shelby miller is breaking and michael waka is slightly broken and os Tavares is, you know, I think after 80 played appearances, we can pretty much call the end of that experiment.

Seems fair. So there's not any longer this feeling that they're absolutely going to be contenders every year for the next 14. However, I still think that they... I think they probably still should be. They should be. Yeah, they should be, they have enough in the system and they just won a world series like 40 minutes ago. So if I were them, I would not, I I'd put them at one at one, maybe two at this point.

I'd be looking for, uh, I don't know, backup Loogie maybe or something like that. But I mean, actually George Kataris is pretty much the perfect move for them really rounds them off uh in fact i think that in the in the annual uh we wrote in one of their player comments that the uh that the backup catcher position was the only place that they were not practically perfect that's right and tony cruz's as i've written a couple times has been one of the the least used players in baseball which always amuses me but of course now he's in a position where he's playing every day yeah uh so that's a possible exposure yeah all right brewers uh i'll just go i'm gonna say five on brewers i think yeah we were we were united in our negativity about the Brewers heading into this year, so I am with you on that.

Pirates. Pirates. I don't know how strong a contender I consider the Pirates. I don't know how strong a contender I consider the Pirates. They're kind of in the, I guess their playoff odds are in the, what, the 40% range? 40%, yeah. 60% division. And they basically, the Reds, Pirates, and Brewers all project to essentially be the same, you know, slightly better than 500 team going forward. Yeah.

So. If you don't consider them contenders this year, though, do you consider them contenders next year? I mean, is there enough at the higher levels that you see them adding 12 wins just by promotions and development in the next year or two? I could envision that. Yeah, I don't know.

So do you see a powerhouse coming, or do you see this being a team whose window is you know an 84 to 86 win team in a couple years they kind of get lucky because if it's the latter and it might be the latter i don't know that i'm i'm not sure i'm gonna like they they've had very good farm systems you know top top five farm systems but it's not like this is not like the farm system to end all farm systems and they still have very you know very low margins they um you know they're not going to be able to afford to go out and get a lot of contributing pieces um and the ones that they do all have to hit you know they you know they've had some good ones they've shown the ability to make smart moves

but i don't know that i see i don't know that I see a 96-win team in the future by default. No, neither do I. I'd expect them to be in the mix for the foreseeable future, but not an overwhelming favorite. Yeah, I'd say two or three on them. More than last year, but yeah, their small margins make it hard to root for them to do anything too drastic. Reds have 33% playoff odds, 13% for the division, and projected basically, like I said, be between the Brewers and the Pirates for the rest of the season.

and, you know, project to basically, like I said, be between the Brewers and the Pirates for the rest of the season. Yeah, I like the Reds roster. But without, you know, with Votto and Phillips hurt, does that change things for you? That's baked into the playoff odds, to be clear. Yes. I would make a significant move, I think. I'd be willing to. I would make a significant move I think I'd be willing to

I'd make a three I don't know I have not I have not looked enough at the Reds to have a strong opinion I don't know I feel like I know all the Reds but I don't know what

like I feel like I've looked at all the pieces imagine that I haven't looked imagine that I'm Jonah Carey and I'm asking you this question. Hold your breath and start speaking. Put me down for two for the Reds. Not feeling it. I think RJ more than me is, and RJ is better at looking at the picture on the box than I am. Nationals, 84% playoff odds, 67% division,

and just below the Dodgers for best expected winning percentage for the rest of the season in the National League. If the Nationals needed to do something significant, I'd say that they should. I don't know that there is that thing. I don't know that there's really anything significant they need to do. So if they were in their current position but had a gaping hole somewhere instead of a surplus of good players,

then I'd say that they should be willing to make a 4 or a 5 because this is a team that has maybe been expected to perform a bit better than it has and is right in the middle of the period in which it's expected to be all coming together. So if there were something significant they needed to do, I'd say that they are a team that should, but I don't know that there is that thing for them.

Yeah, a lot of guys on that team between 24 and 30. Yeah, I guess that's probably true. You can always find a thing you need, but yeah, you're right. Not a five. Not a five, you're right. So yeah, you're probably right. I feel like that exactly like you said, by the math that we're using, they can justify more. But, I mean, it feels like realistically there's not anything better than a two or a three that would apply to them.

Braves, 65%? Braves have a a bright future they've got their their young core locked up for quite a while so i don't think they need to do anything huge um then again i mean i guess they're in the position where they're kind of in a dead heat, more or less, right now with the Nationals, and so every win matters a lot to them, potentially. But they're also not necessarily a team whose window is closing anytime soon either. So I guess I'd put them at a three. The Braves have to just almost be on tilt at this point because when I did that thing not long ago about the the best team since some arbitrary date and I went back

and saw how many teams could say they were the best team since since some date and there were like 16 teams or whatever the Braves were the best team since like 2009 or 2010 I mean they've been better than than the Cardinals, than the Yankees over a certain date, than the Giants, than the Rays, than the Red Sox, than all these teams. And like the Giants have won like 30-some postseason games, and the Braves have won two.

Yeah, I think I wrote something about the A's for grantland's second half preview last week and about just how they've had a bunch of played appearance had a bunch of playoff appearances without getting deep into the playoffs and i think the braves and the cubs are tied for the most most playoff appearances since their last World Series victory because the Braves, they won in 95. Oh, well, the Braves and the Cubs. It's a little bit different. That's a fun fact.

Yeah, it is. But, of course, the Braves won in 95, and they've made the playoffs. Except for a little lull there, they've made the playoffs just about every year since then. And they just haven't had much luck in the playoffs. So that's frustrating for them. But, again, I don't know that they're a team that needs to be doing anything desperate. Yeah, the question is, I think that they do need to do something to overtake the Nationals.

To me it seems, and maybe I should have learned from our mistakes because we say this every year, but it seems to me the Nationals are clearly a superior team to them. The question is whether doing something would erase that. I mean, it would certainly help. It would certainly help them finish ahead of the Nationals, but it would be a shame to sacrifice a bunch of stuff and then you still just end up in the same wild card game

that you were going to be in anyway. I'd put the Braves at a – I actually would like to see the Braves be aggressive. I'd put the Braves at a three or a four. Yeah, I'd put them at a three. And, I mean, right now they are a game back of the Nationals, but according to the playoff odds expected winning percentage column, which does not consider strength of schedule, just strength of team, the Nationals are like 50 points of winning percentage, projected winning percentage higher than the Braves, which would be, I mean, maybe that overstates the gap, but if that is the actual gap, it would be difficult to do much to shrink it with a trade deadline move. All right. A's 99.6% playoff chances, but only 58% division chances. Of course,

58 division chances of course they've already made a four or five right um yeah they've already done that and i but that doesn't that you could argue that that is the opposite that that justifies another five more than it discourages it i mean you could argue that i'm not arguing it but you could argue that doing a move you know know, going for it means go for it. No half measures, Ben. No half measures. Sure, you could. And the A's, because they've built in this weird way that RJ Anderson has chronicled at BP, where they've traded all their prospects for other teams' players, they don't really have a ton of guys locked up long term or or a ton of really young cost-controlled players so you could say that maybe their their window is limited of course they've managed to make a window where no one really saw one opening so it's also hard to say

that they couldn't continue to keep it open but but yeah, I mean, they have been the best team in baseball so far, and yet they are in the division with maybe the second best team in baseball so far. So that is an argument to do something, I suppose, just because they've already committed so much. And as you said, the odds are not nearly as good as you would expect based on how good they've been that they'll win the division and there's a big difference in expected World Series winning percentage between winning the division and making a wild card appearance. So sure, I don't know how many glaring holes they have.

I guess there's the second base hole. So I'd say that they could make a move for a four second baseman if that guy were out there. I wouldn't object. There's a lot of four second... There are four second basemen. I mean, that's...

Sobrist or Utley or whoever. Utley is a four and... Murphy's a three at least. Does Murphy still play second base? Yeah. Good. Hard-hitting analysis. All right.

And just curious, let's say they don't make a move. In the next five years, I'll ask you that question we answered about the Pirates ones. In the next five years, how many post-seasons will the A's make if they don't trade anything else away this summer? Two. Two out of five. Yeah. All right. So then if it's

two out of five, then I would say there are four. Okay. All right. Angels, 99% playoff odds, 40% division, and the best expected winning percentage in the American League going forward. So I guess I'd say that, I mean, again, it's a case where there's no way they could make a five,

because especially after the trade they just made, there's very little appealing remaining in their system. So they, maybe even more than the Brewers, have no ability to make a five, but maybe they're in a spot where they would be willing to if they could. Yeah, they seem to perpetually be in a five mode, probably with justification. And to some degree, it's been their doom and their downfall. And to some degree, it's been something they've kind of been able to outrun. So I guess that if it were a starting pitcher, I'd put a five on them at this point.

But again, yeah, unless they find someone who really wants Houston Street, they probably don't have the pieces to get a five on them at this point but again yeah unless unless they find someone who really wants houston street they probably don't have the pieces to get a five mariners 41 percent on the angels does the does the angels trade for street support the the hypothesis about the the trade sides being more lopsided as the players get better. Because we were talking about how maybe they surveyed the market and they found that they couldn't afford a starting pitcher. And so they went with the bullpen guy because they figured that if you can't upgrade the rotation, you can upgrade the bullpen.

And maybe if you're very likely to be in the wildcard game, as they are, maybe upgrading the bullpen is a good thing. Having a good bullpen allows you to go head to head with felix or whatever aclp facing in that in that game but they did have to give up a fair amount for that guy i don't know what what is street on the scale because he is just a reliever but he's also closer uh he's he's somewhere between a three or a four he's at the very high end of three for uh for performance and perhaps a four or a very toward the low end of four for public image and perhaps a three okay all right that fits so So, all right, Mariners. 41% playoff odds and now down to 0.3% division. So they have a pretty good chance of flipping a coin. Yeah.

And no chance of getting an automatic berth. Hmm. So they came into the year with promising young players and yet no sense really that they definitely had a core that would become a contender. And maybe they've gone some way toward suggesting that they do have that talent that could continue to contend. But, I mean, I don't love their chances, but I would say that they should be willing to make a four move.

I think I would guess that this beleaguered front office would be willing to make a four move. Yeah, you're probably right about that i just don't know that i could ever make a four if i knew that my ceiling was the coin flip game yeah i just don't know that i could do it i mean to invest in a season that uh only goes an extra 14 hours or whatever it's just it would break my heart and so i don't know that i could ever do it. Although you do have maybe the best pitcher in baseball in that game. No, you don't.

You have maybe the best pitcher in the league, but you need the rotation to line up for it. Although Iwakuma is one of the eight best or something. So, I mean, yeah, they'll look good in that game. But I just can't do it. I can't do it. I can't go higher than two or three on that. It's understandable.

And, you know, when they signed Kanoa, everybody was, it seemed like everybody was flipping out and saying, oh, but their window's not until 2015. Yeah. And I didn't really see that window necessarily coming. I don't know if I necessarily agreed with that assessment. However, if that's the case, then their window's next year, Ben. All right. Tigers, 90% playoff odds, 84% division. It's another victory lap this summer for a team that's been to the World Series a bunch.

Thoughts? Well, I'd say they'd be on the upper end of the scale in the sense that they are getting older and don't have the best farm system, and maybe their window is kind of closing. So in that sense, I'd say they should be willing to do anything. Then again, they are one of the safer bets to make the playoffs, so you'd have to be convinced that the player you were acquiring gave you a much better chance to win once you're there in order to do that.

But I guess if I were the Tigers and I have a high payroll and I'm always trying to be competitive and have a bunch of guys who are kind of on the downside and this is the back end of their window, then I'd say they should make the big move if it came along and they could. Yeah, I think that they're comfortable enough for the next couple years that they actually should be building. Right now, they should just kind of be taking it easy,

taking their free pass into the postseason and investing what they can into... Like, if I were them, I'd be doing stealth rebuild right now when nobody was looking. And then I just sort of... Which is maybe what the Pfister trade was. Yeah, maybe it was, yeah. And so I not i would i'd put them at like a one the only reason i'd put them any higher

than that is if i was the owner and i was starting to get nervous about my mortality and i really wanted a world series uh that badly and i was willing to basically ruin the franchise for the next guy but as far as the health of the franchise if were them, I just really wouldn't do a doggone thing. To me, that's a one I'd pass on all opportunities. Okay. Orioles, 53%. 43% for the division, but an expected winning percentage below 500 from this point forward. below 500 from this point forward uh i mean thing is how often are the orioles in this strong a position well this is part of what got me thinking about this topic because you remember what i said

in well actually it was like around episode six i think of this show but we almost talked about in episode one we chose your topic which at the time we were remember do you remember we were each bringing a topic and then choosing which one to talk about yes remember that yeah the first of many formats this show is has done uh and when we eventually talked about the orioles a few days later i was making the case that they were never going to be competitive again that was their only chance and that they should have traded you know they should do any they should trade machado and bundy like right then just make that their year they were going to be horrible forever and uh clearly that turned out to be wrong like way wrong um but uh

so so i don't know that i'm necessarily gonna they could have i mean they could easily have a three aces situation i mean it's doesn't even take to... They could easily have a three aces situation. It doesn't even take much imagination to get them to a three aces situation for the next four years or something starting next year after. Bundy, Harvey, of course, maybe it's hard to imagine if you're an Orioles fan and you haven't seen them develop a good starting pitcher in a while, but maybe that makes you more likely to dream about that scenario.

So yeah, that's possible. And of course, there are guys like Davis and Wieters who's heard anyway who are getting closer to free agency, but every team has someone like that, I suppose. So I'd say four, just because it is a division where you get outspent a lot, and this kind of opportunity can't necessarily be counted on. And they've been kind of waiting for this core to come together for a while and it hasn't really fired on all cylinders at any point and it could um so i wouldn't i wouldn't i wouldn't well i wouldn't trade one of those three starting pitchers so maybe that means that i couldn't make a four because you'd probably have to trade one of those guys at least to make a four.

So maybe a three. Yeah, I think a three. I think like an A.J. Burnett is a classic three, and I think that's just about right for them. And the last one, well, no, I do want to do the Yankees. So we'll do two more. Blue Jays, 34%, 26% to win the division, and 513 winning percentage expected this point forward. Blue Jays. So they've got the same pressure as the Orioles,

and they've already traded a lot of prospects to put this current team together. And they're coming off the disappointment of last year. A lot of these guys are maybe getting a little bit older. So I think I'd be more willing to make a move if I were the Blue Jays than the Orioles. So I'll say a 3.5. Okay. And the Yankees, uh, the Yankees are about 28, 29% to make the playoffs, 22% to win

the division and something of a Dodgers situation. Yeah. Um, yeah, they're, they're probably pretty close to an automatic five, or at least they've, they've acted as if they are. Maybe that hasn't worked out so well lately. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Yeah, it doesn't get... What's your take?

It doesn't get better next year, does it? Probably not. I mean, no. Yeah, so I don't know. I'm not sure what the Yankees should do. I think the Yankees should sign a bunch of good players and have them be good. That was my recommendation last winter. Yeah, but you didn't clarify, Ben, that they need to be good.

They need to play well. Didn't I? I said they should sign all the good players. Yeah, but then, no, and they need to play good. I see. Okay. I left that out. Yeah.

Yeah, I don't. I've never lived like a Yankee. I can't tell a Yankee how to live. Well, the Yankees way, you approve of the Yankees way. And the Yankees way is to be a five team that makes five moves that's a good point sure the Yankees are a five

yeah sure the Yankees are a five alright that's the end of the show so any GMs on the fence wondering what to do in the next ten days you're welcome for the answer so please support our sponsor Baseball Reference go to baseballreference.com

subscribe to the play index using the coupon code BP to get the discounted price of $30 on a one year subscription tomorrow is the listener email show we still need some emails so please send them to podcast