We're about to learn how bad the Javier Baez trade was

[Cowtipper]

The Cubs are promoting Pete Crow-Armstrong, the top prospect and former 1st rounder we shipped off to get Javier Baez in 2021. The 21-year-old was slashing .283/.365/.511 with 20 home runs, 82 RBI, 98 runs scored and 37 stolen bases in 107 games between Double- and Triple-A this season.



Depending on how Armstrong does in the future, the trade could go down as an all-time clunker, I reckon. Baez wasn't bad statistically and the other piece of the deal, Trevor Williams, was solid, but neither led the Mets to the promised land. Crow-Armstrong, on the other hand, is a top prospect and has a whole future of potential dominance ahead of him.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Guest

[MFS62]

Of course that stuff was said when we traded Jared Kelenic who was also a very highly regarded prospect.

At last look, Kelenic has played in parts of three ML seasons for Seattle and has a slash line of 201/288/378

with 32 HR and 109 RBI in 826 AB.

Let's see how good Crow-Armstrong really is before we bemoan this trade.



(But I think you're going to be right)

Later

[ashie62]

Crow-Armstrong had just had shoulder surgery



The Cubs gambled and won



I was happy to get Baez at the time but yikes

[Edgy MD]

I'm not bemoaning, but I think there are plenty of facts in place to make a useful judgment.

[Frayed Knot]

=MFS62 post_id=137188 time=1694466281 user_id=60]
Of course that stuff was said when we traded Jared Kelenic who was also a very highly regarded prospect.

At last look, Kelenic has played in parts of three ML seasons for Seattle and has a slash line of 201/288/378

with 32 HR and 109 RBI in 826 AB.

Let's see how good Crow-Armstrong really is before we bemoan this trade.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Completely different situations though. Kelenic was dealt for a mid-20s top notch closer with four years of team control, plus the gamble on how much Cano had left (good while he was available before ultimately washing out).

Even if the Baez trade was worse (TBD), it shouldn't go overlooked here how colossally stupid it was to trade for Cano, a 35-year old on the downside of his career coming off a PED suspension with an albatross contract. And this was before the Mets had a billionaire owner! Calling it a “gamble” on Cano is far too charitable.



Also calling Cano “good” is not really accurate either. He had a middling 2019, and a good 2020 (all 49 games of it), and then was so bad/a clubhouse cancer that they had to release him with almost 3 years left on the contract.



As for Baez, when he was acquired, the Mets were up 5 games in the division, and Lindor was hurt (he didn't return until August 24 that year).. Baez played very well down the stretch, and the Mets also got Trevor Williams who was a not insignificant part of the 2022 team. It may well have still been a dumb trade but it's far from clear if it really was that bad.

[Edgy MD]

I tend to think taking on Canó's bad contract was the price of taking on Diaz' benevolent one. At least that's the way the Mets front office were looking at it as they chose to swallow that pill.



Doesn't necessarily make it wise, of course, but that's probably a big part of the thinking.

[Frayed Knot]

The Baez deal can never be TBD. We got the best that Baez ever had and it was still <200 ABs of what turned out to be a lost 2nd half.

By the next season Crow-Armstong was rising up the prospect lists and could hav been kept or been dealt away for a much better or

more necessary player.



And are we really still treating the Kelenic deal as the Cano deal as we mostly (and incorrectly) did five years ago?

Diaz's NYM (to-date) career hardly needs rehashing while Cano gave the Mets 700 ABs of at worst decent (OPS+ = 105)

hitting. Did I want him here? No, but he contributed while he was active. Waste of money? Sure, but I don't care.



Kelenic has a ways to go before he makes me even think about regretting that deal as a whiole.

PC-A barely has to maintain an ML pulse.

[Gwreck]

Edgy MD wrote: I tend to think taking on Canó's bad contract was the price of taking on Diaz' benevolent one. At least that's the way the Mets front office were looking at it as they chose to swallow that pill. Doesn't necessarily make it wise, of course, but that's probably a big part of the thinking.

The problem in the trade was that they both took Cano's contract and gave up the prospect. One of the other should have been good enough.

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: Diaz's NYM (to-date) career hardly needs rehashing

It probably needs a little more as we can't overlook the truly awful 2019 season Diaz had, on an 86 win team that ended 3 games out of the playoffs. There were of course a lot of flaws on that team, etc., etc. but it's not an overstatement to point out that if Diaz was merely “ok” that year it could have been the difference.



Then there were 2 good seasons and a third that was of course incredibly good.



And as for the Cano money? As it was the pre-Cohen days, that money could have instead have been much better used to retain Zach Wheeler, who of course wanted to remain with the Mets but wasn't given a competitive contract offer.



Also, since Cano keeps coming up, I am compelled to point out again that the Mets actually got more WAR from Trevor Williams than they did from Cano.



Again, the point is not that the Kelenic trade was good (it was not) or the Crow-Armstrong trade was good, but the absolute certainty that one was worse than the other is to my eyes unsupported.

[Edgy MD]

I'm certainly not endorsing the trade or the price. I'm only trying to suggest that Diaz was the team's main target.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Completely different situations though. Kelenic was dealt for a mid-20s top notch closer with four years of team control, plus the gamble on how much Cano had left (good while he was available before ultimately washing out). Even if the Baez trade was worse (TBD), it shouldn't go overlooked here how colossally stupid it was to trade for Cano, a 35-year old on the downside of his career coming off a PED suspension with an albatross contract. And this was before the Mets had a billionaire owner! Calling it a “gamble” on Cano is far too charitable. Also calling Cano “good” is not really accurate either. He had a middling 2019, and a good 2020 (all 49 games of it), and then was so bad/a clubhouse cancer that they had to release him with almost 3 years left on the contract. As for Baez, when he was acquired, the Mets were up 5 games in the division, and Lindor was hurt (he didn't return until August 24 that year).. Baez played very well down the stretch, and the Mets also got Trevor Williams who was a not insignificant part of the 2022 team. It may well have still been a dumb trade but it's far from clear if it really was that bad.

The most significant aspect of the Cano trade was that he had a no trade clause. Meaning the Mariners had no leverage at all. That trade only makes sense in the context of a failson owner who had no means to increase payroll but wanted to hold that trophy before he sold in two years.



That's why Kelenic was expendable.