A Completely Ill-Advised Defense of the Anthony Rizzo Trade

[Twins]

I'll take the bait. I should probably just keep my mouth shut, but that's not really the style of the IBC, is it?

Here's my reasoning behind the Lindor/Rizzo trade:

I have an aging core on a good, but not great team. One team in my division is clearly better than me, and the others are catching up. 2016 proved that I can no longer rest on taking the Wild Card and hoping for the best in the playoffs. I needed to start re-working this roster in some way, shape, or form to improve or I was going to be passed by.

Lindor is a guy I've wanted for a long, long time. I hate the left side of my infield. Yunel Escobar is maybe my least favorite major leaguer (especially now with Nick Punto out of the picture). Zack Cozart is what he is.

Anyway...

Lindor is entering his age 23 season. In ~1100 MLB PAs, he's already accumulated 10.8 WAR. He's a plus plus defender at a premium position, and he's pretty good on offense, too. And he's just 23. Here's the thing: I think he's going to get better on offense. I think that as he fills out, he's got 20-25 HR potential in him. He's already improved his plate discipline. He makes good contact, and he steals bases.

When JB didn't outright tell me that Lindor was off limits, I went for it. The price to have my SS for the next was Anthony Rizzo. Rizzo has quietly (or not so quietly) established himself as a 5.5 win player at a position that's at the end of the defensive spectrum. He'll be 28 in August and as at the peak of his prime. And, (obligatory cheap shot), if I go by the offers I've received from some of you for Rizzo, I just turned a massive profit.

JB wasn't going to trade Lindor for Rizzo straight up, or Lindor for Rizzo and Cozart, I needed to sweeten the pot. That's where Zobrist and the pick comes in. Zobrist is very good in his own right, but his star is fading. He'll be 36 next season, his defense is on the decline, and I'm sure there's some other lie I've told myself to feel better about moving him. I figure he's got 2-3 years left of very good production, and then who knows what happens.

The pick was not a huge loss in my mind. I've drafted in this class a couple of times already in other leagues, and in my opinion, the talent falls off considerably at about pick 15. I could be wrong about that, and I probably am (I'm not as good of a judge of amateur talent as some of you are). But if I'm going to move a first round pick to sweeten the pot, this is the year to do it.

Cozart was Lindor's replacement on JB's roster. Good defense, not so great on base skills, some pop. An acceptable starting SS.

Gordon for Ellsbury was a wash, and I'm ignoring it for the purposes of this post.

So here's where I'm at: I know I overpaid for Lindor. I'm well aware of that. But it's the only way I was ever getting him. Rather than haggle about third and fourth pieces coming back my way to even the cost, when Lindor was gettable, I went and got him. I'm taking on all the risk in this deal. But if I'm right about Lindor getting better, I'm fine with that. If I'm wrong? I still got a pretty awesome SS, and only traded players from positions of depth in order to get him. The only things that changed from my lineup here are I have a hole at 1B and Bautista probably moves from DH to RF until I can find a more acceptable defensive replacement. In my mind, if I"m going to overpay, this is the way to do it - without crippling my current active roster.

There you have it. An unnecessarily wordy explanation of why I made the trade. You can still think I'm an idiot. But at least now you know why I'm an idiot.

[Padres]

Okay, it isn't a trade I would have made (mostly we value the draft pick a lot differently) but you did and that's that ... One thing that threw me off was the comma after Lindor ...

Royals trades Ben Zobrist, Alex Gordon, Anthony Rizzo, Zack Cozart, Reds Draft Pick 1, to Yankees for Jacoby Ellsbury, Francisco Lindor,

Makes it appear there is more and perhaps the message was truncated. Now I have looked and all trade messages end with a comma. Just never noticed that before.

[Rockies]

Sorry Jason, or Jasonses.. Please don't take this as an attack on either of you. But I have to comment.

I think its a bad deal.. and the more I look at it, personally, the more I hate it. I think Gordon is undervalued here upon further inspection. Initially I had the same thought as your defense outlined above.. him and Jacoby are a wash.. but the more I think about it, the less I'm sure of that if we take into account value defensively and projections. I think you're under valuing Cozart a lot, if you value Lindor that much. I think you undervalue the 1st round pick. Maybe it doesn't in "your mind" but what is in your mind doesn't necessarily correlate to what the market value of that pick is.

That said, I'm at a conflict here - I'm of the thought and have always been that we should all be able to run our teams how we see fit. I don't recall if we still have "safeguards" in place for trades. And even if we did, I think you're both tenured and have been successful, so we should give significant thought about being hands off.

But at the end of the day I have a feeling in my gut that this is a trade that is just awfully lopsided. I had it when I initially saw it, and its only been reinforced upon further digging.

[Mariners]

Just a quick point to Nate. There IS NO market here (IBC). You have what - 35-40% of the league who actively trades? Nobody is knocking down Gudim's door for Gordon or Cozart, there market for guy's in their 30's in IBC in non-existent.

[Rockies]

Just a quick point to Nate. There IS NO market here (IBC). You have what - 35-40% of the league who actively trades? Nobody is knocking down Gudim's door for Gordon or Cozart, there market for guy's in their 30's in IBC in non-existent.

Its a fair point. There is definitely a shift in value toward young players. But my point about the "market" was more in line with the 1st round pick. Not players in their 30's.

[Yankees]

If we're agreeing with Jaggers (and I do here), the first round pick is immaterial to getting Lindor. That kid is a superduperstar.

[Twins]

Sorry Jason, or Jasonses.. Please don't take this as an attack on either of you. But I have to comment.

I think its a bad deal.. and the more I look at it, personally, the more I hate it. I think Gordon is undervalued here upon further inspection. Initially I had the same thought as your defense outlined above.. him and Jacoby are a wash.. but the more I think about it, the less I'm sure of that if we take into account value defensively and projections. I think you're under valuing Cozart a lot, if you value Lindor that much. I think you undervalue the 1st round pick. Maybe it doesn't in "your mind" but what is in your mind doesn't necessarily correlate to what the market value of that pick is.

That said, I'm at a conflict here - I'm of the thought and have always been that we should all be able to run our teams how we see fit. I don't recall if we still have "safeguards" in place for trades. And even if we did, I think you're both tenured and have been successful, so we should give significant thought about being hands off.

But at the end of the day I have a feeling in my gut that this is a trade that is just awfully lopsided. I had it when I initially saw it, and its only been reinforced upon further digging.

I don't think you're attacking me, and I'm not worried about it. If I'm right about Lindor still getting better, then I'll have no buyer's remorse for this trade at all. If I'm wrong, then I took a risk and it backfired. Like I said, the key for me in overpaying for Lindor was that I wasn't crippling my roster to do it.

[Rockies]

If we're agreeing with Jaggers (and I do here), the first round pick is immaterial to getting Lindor. That kid is a superduperstar.

It's not immaterial. But you're right, he's a superstar.

[Rockies]

Sorry Jason, or Jasonses.. Please don't take this as an attack on either of you. But I have to comment.

I think its a bad deal.. and the more I look at it, personally, the more I hate it. I think Gordon is undervalued here upon further inspection. Initially I had the same thought as your defense outlined above.. him and Jacoby are a wash.. but the more I think about it, the less I'm sure of that if we take into account value defensively and projections. I think you're under valuing Cozart a lot, if you value Lindor that much. I think you undervalue the 1st round pick. Maybe it doesn't in "your mind" but what is in your mind doesn't necessarily correlate to what the market value of that pick is.

That said, I'm at a conflict here - I'm of the thought and have always been that we should all be able to run our teams how we see fit. I don't recall if we still have "safeguards" in place for trades. And even if we did, I think you're both tenured and have been successful, so we should give significant thought about being hands off.

But at the end of the day I have a feeling in my gut that this is a trade that is just awfully lopsided. I had it when I initially saw it, and its only been reinforced upon further digging.

I don't think you're attacking me, and I'm not worried about it. If I'm right about Lindor still getting better, then I'll have no buyer's remorse for this trade at all. If I'm wrong, then I took a risk and it backfired. Like I said, the key for me in overpaying for Lindor was that I wasn't crippling my roster to do it.

And this is where I have a lot of internal conflict. I think you should be allowed to make this move. I just think its a bad deal. With nearly every fiber of my being. But then, it wasn't my deal. Meh.

If it got put up to a vote, I'd probably vote in favor of letting it pass, as hard as that would be for me.

[Rangers]

Just a quick point to Nate. There IS NO market here (IBC). You have what - 35-40% of the league who actively trades? Nobody is knocking down Gudim's door for Gordon or Cozart, there market for guy's in their 30's in IBC in non-existent.

To further tangentialize, I agree with your point but kind of disagree with the root cause. When I go down the list of our GMs, I think you can do a deal with almost every GM in our league if they want your player and have a match. Only a few are literally not active as traders.

The problem is that too many of us see ourselves in a building process and not enough of us are trying to win right now. When that happens, the market for players like you mentioned disintegrates, both because not enough teams need good role players and because not enough teams need guys in their 30s.

[Phillies]

Just a quick point to Nate. There IS NO market here (IBC). You have what - 35-40% of the league who actively trades? Nobody is knocking down Gudim's door for Gordon or Cozart, there market for guy's in their 30's in IBC in non-existent.

To further tangentialize, I agree with your point but kind of disagree with the root cause. When I go down the list of our GMs, I think you can do a deal with almost every GM in our league if they want your player and have a match. Only a few are literally not active as traders.

The problem is that too many of us see ourselves in a building process and not enough of us are trying to win right now. When that happens, the market for players like you mentioned disintegrates, both because not enough teams need good role players and because not enough teams need guys in their 30s.

I will take everyone's good role players and old guys. You know where to find me.

[Mets]

Just a quick point to Nate. There IS NO market here (IBC). You have what - 35-40% of the league who actively trades? Nobody is knocking down Gudim's door for Gordon or Cozart, there market for guy's in their 30's in IBC in non-existent.

To further tangentialize, I agree with your point but kind of disagree with the root cause. When I go down the list of our GMs, I think you can do a deal with almost every GM in our league if they want your player and have a match. Only a few are literally not active as traders.

The problem is that too many of us see ourselves in a building process and not enough of us are trying to win right now. When that happens, the market for players like you mentioned disintegrates, both because not enough teams need good role players and because not enough teams need guys in their 30s.

Brett hit the nail.

11/15 teams in the NL were .500 or worse.
9/15 teams in the AL were .500 or worse.

So - 66% of our team are essentially in some rebuilding mode.

In 2016 - 15/30 teams in the MLB were .500 or worse (or 50%). The issue that IBC currently has is lack of parity that limits the amount of competition that increases trade activity as every team tries to get 2-3 wins better to make a difference. For 20 teams in this league 2-3 wins better only means a worse draft slot.

As a prime example - I have Charlie Blackmon, a 30-year old CF that posted a 3.9 WAR last season that I can trade. How many of the 10 contending teams need a CF - and out of the ones that do - how many are willing to give me a package (or have the resources to) that I would need to move him? My choice is to either hold onto Charlie Blackmon in a year that I will likely not break .500 again or trade him for parts and pieces I don't want / need and cannot spin off easily.

On the other hand - I have Jackie Bradley Jr - who will likely post a similar 2017 in WAR to Blackmon - that I can trade to 2/3 of the league if I wanted to - but for my team - what would be the point.

To sum it up - our league has gotten a little top heavy - so it may take a few years before we see trade activity start to ramp up again (or a bunch of fresh blood amongst the GM ranks).

[Mets]

Just a quick point to Nate. There IS NO market here (IBC). You have what - 35-40% of the league who actively trades? Nobody is knocking down Gudim's door for Gordon or Cozart, there market for guy's in their 30's in IBC in non-existent.

To further tangentialize, I agree with your point but kind of disagree with the root cause. When I go down the list of our GMs, I think you can do a deal with almost every GM in our league if they want your player and have a match. Only a few are literally not active as traders.

The problem is that too many of us see ourselves in a building process and not enough of us are trying to win right now. When that happens, the market for players like you mentioned disintegrates, both because not enough teams need good role players and because not enough teams need guys in their 30s.

Brett hit the nail.

11/15 teams in the NL were .500 or worse.
9/15 teams in the AL were .500 or worse.

So - 66% of the teams in IBC are essentially in some rebuilding mode.

In 2016 - 15/30 teams in the MLB were .500 or worse (or 50%). The issue that IBC currently has is lack of parity that limits the amount of competition that increases trade activity as every team tries to get 2-3 wins better to make a difference. For 20 teams in this league 2-3 wins better only means a worse draft slot.

As a prime example - I have Charlie Blackmon, a 30-year old CF that posted a 3.9 WAR last season that I can trade. How many of the 10 contending teams need a CF - and out of the ones that do - how many are willing to give me a package (or have the resources to) that I would need to move him? My choice is to either hold onto Charlie Blackmon in a year that I will likely not break .500 again or trade him for parts and pieces I don't want / need and cannot spin off easily.

On the other hand - I have Jackie Bradley Jr - who will likely post a similar 2017 in WAR to Blackmon - that I can trade to 2/3 of the league if I wanted to - but for my team - what would be the point.

To sum it up - our league has gotten a little top heavy - so it may take a few years before we see trade activity start to ramp up again (or a bunch of fresh blood amongst the GM ranks).