Cubs & Nationals

Trades

Players

Back

Cubs & Nationals

December 29, 2020

Cubs

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Gomes 32 Majors C Low 1.0 3.6 6.0 -2.4 -2.9 -2.4 -1.9
Kieboom 22 Majors 3B SS Medium 5.0 43.7 8.6 35.1 28.1 35.1 42.1

Nationals

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Bryant 28 Majors 3B OF High 1.0 22.3 18.6 3.7 3 3.7 4.5
Contreras 28 Majors C Medium 2.0 50.5 22.2 28.3 22.6 28.3 34
10 Comments
      • Bob Warja

        John, is there a way to evaluate a trade involving players but eliminating their teams from it? In other words, my “fantasy” team has players form multiple different clubs and I’d like to look at trade values w/o having to be encumbered by the team they’re on, if I’m explaining myself adequately.

        • John Bitzer

          Unfortunately we can’t remove the team element from the simulator at the moment. We have some plans for a future version where your idea could come into play, though.

          However, for now, as a potential workaround for your scenario, you can look up any player’s value by clicking on the Team Values section and plugging in the player’s name in the search bar.

          Thanks for the feedback.

  1. Erik Jager

    Here is a better trade Red Sox get Contreras for the Ace Starter Matt Hall to the Cubs. The Cubs save money and give Cardinals’s fans a good laugh!

  2. Bob Warja

    No way would I, as a Cubs fan. move Contreras for Kieboom. Yes, Kieboom is only a small sample size guy, so he could still work out. However, catchers that play solid defense and hit are at a such a premium that I just disagree with the ratings I guess.

    • John Bitzer

      In a normal market, I would agree. But after the Darvish deal, it’s clear the Cubs are highly motivated to move salary/veterans, so it’s hard to envision them holding out for a higher value than this.

      Kieboom’s stock has definitely fallen, and I wouldn’t be surprised he were moved for a touch less. But the market loves cheap, controllable players with upside and tools even more than usual now. And we know that prospect development is non-linear; there’s often an adjustment period at the MLB level until they figure it out. The lesson of the Archer trade, where the Pirates gave up too soon on Glasnow and Meadows, is instructive in that regard.

      • Noah K

        John you have to surely know there’s a pretty large difference between a 34 year old pitcher owed 60m over 3 years versus 28 year old catcher owed 5-7m this year. I still hate the return the Cubs got on Yu, but clumping Yu and Contreas into the same salary dump scenario is kind of insane.

        • John Bitzer

          Oh no question. Contreras is by no means a salary dump, because he’s not making that much. However, he has only two years of control left, the Cubs are clearly heading for a rebuild, and they don’t have a strong farm. In this case they’re looking to move him for prospect capital. They don’t have to trade him, but they’ve signaled to the industry that they are motivated sellers for any veteran with short-term control. As you can see by the numbers above, we haven’t downgraded him or anything; we’re just sticking to the model on this one, with the median being the same as the estimated surplus.

          • Noah K

            Yeah there is no doubt the Cubs are heading into a full rebuild, but I am at least hoping as a Cubs fan the FO realizes the difference between salary dumps and trading what should hopefully be considered a premium asset to accelerate the rebuild. I don’t doubt they took the first option through the door with the Yu trade to move salary, but if they follow the same path for Contreas I will be disappointed.

Submit a Comment