So who made the worst deadline trade?

[james33]

(other than the Phillies/Rockies; you certainly could argue that they made the worst move by not trading)

[Msaint]

Rays.

End of list.

[Gregg]

I didn't like what the Cubs got for Boni and Russell.

[james33]

I don't like what the Red Sox got for Lackey.

Not sure that Craig is a bargain at his contract (2015: $5.5m; 2016: $9m; 2017: $11m); maybe they think they can turn him around from grounding out.

And Joe Kelly doesn't strike many people out.

I'm not sure why they didn't get prospects that they could then re-trade during 2015, assuming they're back in contention then.

[Grinch]

Rays.

End of list.

Yup....gotta agree. Especially if they turned down Addison Russell (when they were further out of the playoff hunt). This seems like the Rays decided that "We MUST sell Price", played hardball with the A's (Russell) then saw the market drop with Lester, Lackey, potentially Hammels added and hit the panic switch.

[james33]

Yup....gotta agree. Especially if they turned down Addison Russell (when they were further out of the playoff hunt). This seems like the Rays decided that "We MUST sell Price", played hardball with the A's (Russell) then saw the market drop with Lester, Lackey, potentially Hammels added and hit the panic switch.

The also were playing hardball with the Cardinals, asking for much more for Price, so Cardinals went with Lackey instead. After the Lackey trade, the Rays may not have had many dance partners. Though where were the Reds/Brewers/Pirates?

[red]

Yup....gotta agree. Especially if they turned down Addison Russell (when they were further out of the playoff hunt).

We hear this constantly -- that the Rays turned down Addison Russell. Is this actually true or just conjecture?

Maybe the Rays were never offered Russell, because the A's weren't keen on paying Price $20 million next year. Why would the A's offer a top prospect for a pitcher they can't afford in 2015?

The A's got a comparable pitcher in Lester that they don't have to pay next year. They had to give up Cespedes, but he's overrated and platooning OFs is a strength for the A's.

[revo]

Heard this on MLB Network radio this morning, and it's somewhat true: if the Rays got Smyly & Franklin 2 years ago, many pundits would have said they got a great haul for him. Both were top prospects (Smyly was BA's 82nd rated prospect in '12, Franklin #79 in '13), both are young (Smyly is 25, Franklin 23), and both now have made the transition from prospect to major leaguer. Of course, neither have become stars yet, but their point is that many are writing these two off just because they struggled in their limited playing time to date, and many would take the devil they don't know over the devil they know.

The Cubs got Russell in the Shark deal, but had Russell come up and struggled in 300 MLB ABs, would everyone have thought differently of that deal?

Obviously, those who hate the deal for the Rays have frowned tremendously on these two.


Also, how about the fact that no Top 50 rated prospects were dealt yesterday?

[Davros]

We hear this constantly -- that the Rays turned down Addison Russell. Is this actually true or just conjecture?

I believe that Jeff Passan was the source of that story in the media. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/after-f...060544823.html

Once they steeled themselves to trading Addison Russell, the precocious 20-year-old who was going to be their shortstop for the next seven years starting in 2015, the A's knew anyone was in play, including Price. They talked with the Rays. Permutations of a deal went back and forth. It never materialized.

This statement does not imply to me that any formal trade proposal was ever made by Oakland. They talked, but probably never found any common ground at the time.

[Grinch]

Heard this on MLB Network radio this morning, and it's somewhat true: if the Rays got Smyly & Franklin 2 years ago, many pundits would have said they got a great haul for him. Both were top prospects (Smyly was BA's 82nd rated prospect in '12, Franklin #79 in '13), both are young (Smyly is 25, Franklin 23), and both now have made the transition from prospect to major leaguer. Of course, neither have become stars yet, but their point is that many are writing these two off just because they struggled in their limited playing time to date, and many would take the devil they don't know over the devil they know.

The Cubs got Russell in the Shark deal, but had Russell come up and struggled in 300 MLB ABs, would everyone have thought differently of that deal?

Obviously, those who hate the deal for the Rays have frowned tremendously on these two.


Also, how about the fact that no Top 50 rated prospects were dealt yesterday?

But, as ALWAYS a concern with the Rays, those two are much closer to arb/FA than Russell OR had they acquired them in 2012

[mgwiz22]

Heard this on MLB Network radio this morning, and it's somewhat true: if the Rays got Smyly & Franklin 2 years ago, many pundits would have said they got a great haul for him. Both were top prospects (Smyly was BA's 82nd rated prospect in '12, Franklin #79 in '13), both are young (Smyly is 25, Franklin 23), and both now have made the transition from prospect to major leaguer. Of course, neither have become stars yet, but their point is that many are writing these two off just because they struggled in their limited playing time to date, and many would take the devil they don't know over the devil they know.

The Cubs got Russell in the Shark deal, but had Russell come up and struggled in 300 MLB ABs, would everyone have thought differently of that deal?

Obviously, those who hate the deal for the Rays have frowned tremendously on these two.


Also, how about the fact that no Top 50 rated prospects were dealt yesterday?

This statement seems to argue that in evaluating the trade we should disregard what Smyly and Franklin have done in the last two years. That's crazy. You have to evaluate the trade based upon all available information and based on that the Rays seem to have gotten less than they should have. The Rays must think differently ( I guess) or they wouldn't have made the deal.

[cavebird]

Phillies seem the obvious choice by not doing anything. It boggles the mind.

[Erik]

I'd rather have Amaro's successor conduct the fire sale than Amaro.

In any case, all their guys should pass through waivers, so we could still see some deals from them.

[Bodhizefa]

This statement seems to argue that in evaluating the trade we should disregard what Smyly and Franklin have done in the last two years. That's crazy. You have to evaluate the trade based upon all available information and based on that the Rays seem to have gotten less than they should have. The Rays must think differently ( I guess) or they wouldn't have made the deal.

I think it's premature to judge what the Mariners (who have mis-managed almost all hitting prospects) have done with Franklin and what the Tigers have done with Smyly as the end-all be-all for each player, too. Is it fair to Franklin the the M's have encouraged him to play up on his pull power at the expense of his entire hitting game and that they've completely ignored helping him when he's struggled at the major league level? Is it on Smyly that he has done well in his first year as a major league starter but has had trouble against righties -- a weakness that many southpaw 3rd starter types have had at the outset of their careers? I think the Rays looked at the formative building blocks of each of these two and decided the moderate upside in Smyly and the 3+ yearly WAR upside in Franklin was worth it.

Would I have taken Addison Russell over those two guys? Absolutely. But we have no idea how much money Beane wanted the Rays to kick in on that sort of offer, and overall, the Rays didn't do badly. They just didn't get one of the super top 20 that most people thought they would. I'd make the case that Smyly is probably going to be better than at least half of the top 20 pitching prospects in baseball at this point (injuries are a bitch) and Franklin has an outside shot at becoming the next Zobrist-lite. So while I think the trade isn't ideal for the Rays, they certainly didn't get fleeced by any means.

[cavebird]

I'd rather have Amaro's successor conduct the fire sale than Amaro.

In any case, all their guys should pass through waivers, so we could still see some deals from them.

I can understand that sentiment, but it won't be Cliff Lee being traded in August.