Trade Deadline Winners and Losers
Sorting through the madness
At 6pm yesterday evening, a wild week in the MLB trade market came to an end. While some of the big names like Garrett Crochet, Luis Robert Jr. and Pete Alonso - all expected to be dealt - stayed put, this year’s deadline was surely full of excitement. Here are a few quick numbers:
167 players changed teams or organizations in the week leading up to the deadline (from 7/23 through 7/30)
35 year-to-date WAR moved through the trade market1
The Miami Marlins were the most active, acquiring 17 players (albeit most were minor league prospects).
The Marlins also tied the Padres as the most active sellers, dealing away 10 players to other teams.
The Minnesota Twins were the quietest this deadline, with only one acquisition and one departure.
At this point in the season, not all teams have the same goals at the deadline. The contenders in “win-now” mode are willing to send away prospects and future talent for current stars that can help them this season. Others who have come to the conclusion that the current season is a lost cause opt to unload aging stars, clear salary space, and load up on prospects in hopes of future success. Regardless, we can still assess a team’s performance at the trade deadline by analyzing it in a number of ways and in the context of what a team’s goals should be based on their situation.
Loading Up for 2024
To assess how team’s performed in terms of improving their roster for the rest of this season, I examined the projected rest-of-season WAR each team added or dealt - based on FanGraph’s ZiPS rest-of-season WAR projections - along with their change in playoff odds in the week leading up to the deadline.2 I then created a trade deadline score, which represents an average of each team’s league rank in rest-of season WAR change and their change in playoff odds.
After a record of 30-13 since June 8th, the Mets have surged into contender territory. They join the reigning NL champ Diamondbacks, who are fighting for a playoff spot, at the top of this list. Unsurprisingly, the team with the worst grade is the Tampa Bay Rays who, as
discussed in a recent article, sold seemingly everybody.Building for the Future
While some teams are locked in on this year, others opted to load up for the future. Using FanGraphs projected WAR based on their Future Value ratings for prospects and when they are expected to debut in the big leagues, I calculated each team’s prospect WAR added or lost between July 23rd and the deadline. I then added in their change in projected WAR through 2026 based on current big leaguers acquired or dealt in the week leading up to the deadline. The resulting “long-term deadline score”, for each team represents their rank in terms of total WAR change through the 2026 season.
The Marlins are in full-on future mode, acquiring nearly 12 WAR of prospect value through 2026. This is no surprise though, as they essentially threw in the towel in early May when they sent superstar Luis Arraez to the Padres. The Rays, clearly the biggest seller this trade cycle, failed to make up for it in prospect value.
Overall Winners and Losers
By averaging current season and long-term deadline scores, weighted by how much a team should have focused on the current season or future seasons - based on pre-deadline playoff odds - I generated an overall score for each club.3
The Marlins and A’s, by coming to terms with the fact that this season is clearly a lost cause, emerged as the big winners this year. New Marlins GM Peter Bednix definitely hit this one out of the park, while the A’s have set themselves up to have success in their future home in Vegas (after a stop in Sacramento). This table also backs up my intense head-scratching of the Rays over the past week, who appear to be the biggest losers of this deadline. They were the biggest sellers, despite a 21% chance to make the playoffs on July 23rd, and failed to capitalize on their losses. To quote the cinematic masterpiece Dodgeball, “That’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for them”. This is a question that will probably pertain to all of these clubs at one point or another. We’ll see how it plays out for all of them.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the winners and losers this trade deadline. Drop a comment below and let me know!
MLB WAR only, does not include minor league players. WAR per FanGraphs
Playoff odds also per FanGraphs. Pre-deadline odds are from 7/23, one week before the trade deadline.
Calculated as: Overall Score = (Current_Score * Playoff_Odds)+(Long-Term_Score * 1-Playoff_Odds)
Very interesting article, thanks. And it perfectly aligns with my opinion of what my Tigers did at the deadline. I guess they got rid of some people they felt needed to go like Flaherty, although no one was impressed with the return from the Dodgers. And after the GM gave his obligatory “we’re thrilled with our return” speech, he also said that he is not going to rush any of our young pitchers up from the minors this year. But the head-scratching result of this is that they now have TWO starting pitchers on their roster. They had three bullpen games in the past week! How any GM could put himself and his team in this kind of predicament is way beyond me. There is young talent on their roster, and they are at least a year or two away from the playoffs, but man…. This is going to be one ugly second half in Motown. There are way more innings left in this season than arms in the dugout
I genuinely do admire the outstanding effort here, but I've commented on this elsewhere but will repeat it in the spirit of hopefully generating further positive discussions. As a general proposition, the trade deadline is a poor method to build an accretive postseason roster. It's a time compressed auction this is too often comprised of a series of mediocre transactions where sellers don't get enough to matter in October, and buyers receive too little in return for the future (a "lose, lose").
Part of the issue is the goal being sought. "Making the Playoffs" used to be significant to a World Series appearance, but with the expansion of teams now diluting the postseason with 40% of teams making it in, it's not aspirational in the least or even arguably a valid goal.
To put a finer point on it, what is the value associated with playing a few extra games after the regular season? If, on the other hand, the goal is to be in the World Series - let's assume that to be a valid goal - then the top 4 or 5 teams in late July should be buyers and everyone else sellers or silent. It's akin to a person on the verge of bankruptcy buying a Lamborghini that only pushes them closer to bankruptcy. It's an ill-conceived transaction but one where sportswriters reflexively cheer the moxie of "going all in" and argue that the Lamborghini is a great car with a high WAR.
Sure, it is a fine car...but to whom and at what cost? What is the context for the transaction? If your chances of appearing in the World Series are less than 10% are your odds really better by grabbing a player for two months who was a 5 WAR player three years ago? Are you really better off by getting "the best reliever available" instead of asking whether that reliever will have a material impact on your club over two months? Is "grabbing" Alex Cobb a direction changer despite him having not thrown a pitch this entire season? Should words like "flashes," "extra arm," "when healthy," "two years ago," "last rehab start," or "innings eater" get you excited?
I just don't get the logic. To be perfectly candid, the last time I saw the trade deadline's level of mass hysteria substituting for intellectual analysis was when watching a production of Arthur Miller's, The Crucible at our local high school. In case you missed it, that story doesn't end well either.
More specifically, I just don't see the supposed logic borne out in results. It strikes me that we need to stop thinking myopically about WAR values and start thinking more expansively about the real world in which these deals are happening - the context.
Put another way, instead of looking at these transactions prospectively and evaluating who got the most rented WAR for the next two months, why not examine these transactions retrospectively when the dust settles to see if there are proof points in performance for this strategy? Even when the net WAR was positive in July - does the strategy of buying assets at the deadline do anybody any good outside of those teams already at the World Series' doorstep? Does buying at the deadline even matter, and if so, how often?
In the tsunami of media trade deadline "grades" and "report cards" and "winners and losers," I'm forever struck by the paucity of analysis following these transactions over a mere next two months to discern whether they did any good. It's like everybody gets amnesia on August 1st. Which teams can you say in October wouldn't have been projected to be in the Series in July but are and for the reason of a specific transaction they did at the deadline? I'll bet the numbers will surprise you.
Look, if you're the Dodgers and your odds of getting to the World Series are 45% and you need a starter, and one is available for a reasonable expense - by all means do it. But if you're San Diego sitting at 5% and nabbing Juan Soto and Josh Hader two years ago amounted to nothing for your club, is strengthening your bullpen via a wild overpay because Jurickson Profar is finally having a decent season an intelligent strategy? I'll take the under and bet on LA or Philly to submit lineup cards in October.
Or take the counter example of the pathetic White Sox. Does not trading their top line assets really merit an "F?" What does it mean to their season which is already over that these guys are still on their roster? As Jim Bowden correctly noted yesterday, their strategy might be to wait until the season is over when there are potentially more bidders and more time to structure a better deal. They're under no time pressure here he added. Well, that makes complete sense to me and should to everyone else except apparently the media handing out an "F" because Chicago was a buzzkill and refused to mindlessly jump into the deep end and do something desperate and unnecessary at the expense of their future.
Sports psychologists have known for some time that soccer goalkeepers who dive left or right stop way fewer goals than those that do nothing and stay put in the center of the net. Yet 94% of the time, they continue to dive left or right even when they know it's a bad strategy. The reason is what is known as "action bias." People are fearful of doing nothing and appearing to others as indecisive or weak. So, they falsely believe that doing anything - even if negative and counterproductive - will make them appear smarter and more confident to observers. They would rather appear to be trying to do something, even when doing nothing is the clearly superior strategy. I would add baseball GMs to goalkeepers.
Would love to circle back in October and examine who was actually benefited by all this adrenaline inducing wheeling and dealing. Sorta like an NFL redraft of the Draft three years ago.
Thanks again for the time.