c:boo:3

MLB Trade Deadline Misconceptions: A Treatise Sometimes it’s good to rock the boat a bit to see what unexplored beliefs exist just below the surface of the fan-iverse. Just when you think everyone largely thinks the same things, a presented concept can serve as a dividing line -- a real us-vs-them moment. I certainly got more than I bargained for on Sunday with the suggestion that the Pirates trade Oneil Cruz, in my estimation a very incomplete player who could solve a lot of our current deltas through a swap. The vitriol that suggestion created surprised even me. Many of the casuals who write their names in crayon called me ugly words and pledged their allegiance to Cruz. But also, surprisingly, a number of people whose baseball views I respect took umbrage with the concept as well. It was glorious. Mixing it up and getting people declaring their views, defending their suppositions… that’s what gets me excited. No one grows from saying ditto on everything. I think it’s sad that some people decided to unfollow me as a result of voicing a baseball opinion. But then, if that was their reaction, it probably isn’t much of a loss. #weaksauce The Unwritten Rules of the Trade Deadline One of the stranger things people said was that “the trade deadline is only for prospect deals.” The premise of my post was the opportunity to trade with a team that may not see themselves as traditionally “selling,” swapping an MLB player we might have a surplus of for another team’s MLB player that fills our needs, and vice versa. These people seem convinced that a trade like this simply shouldn’t, or even can’t, be considered at the trade deadline. “That sort of trade is only for the offseason.” Not arguing that trades like this are less likely, or less common as a result of the traditional dynamics -- instead, they actually believe it’s verboten. And that got me wondering why someone would think that way. The Traditional Approach I get that it is less common. Teams that are classically “selling” most often have a losing record, are moving on from a player on a expiring contract, and accept prospects in return because that team has no immediate need for major league talent. I understand that this is the dominant structure. But does that mean every trade must represent that dynamic? What about in a season like 2026, when there are only 7 teams officially functioning as sellers, with 23 other teams all trying to improve. The competitive nature of this season is becoming more common as three wild cards in each league means there are 12 playoff slots for 30 teams. If you are within 4-5 games at the trade deadline, you may be unlikely to sell. That creates a sellers market, which jacks up the cost of what might be substandard talent. Think about it: if you’re relegated to targeting players from losing clubs, it stands to reason that their talent may not be the best available. And yet, 22 other teams are all competing with you for the same warmed-over leftovers, like closing time at the proverbial pub. An Alternative Approach By offering MLB talent, a team like the Pirates can open up a different set of trading partners that either might still be competing for the playoffs, or see themselves as close to competing and wanting tested talent for next year. Not only isn’t this crazy, but it happens fairly regularly. I’ll get to that below, but first, I’ll attempt to understand why some might think this is an unlikely route: 1. The Surplus Conundrum - It requires two teams to acknowledge having a surplus of something. That may seem less common. A playoff-bound team probably has one starting catcher, or one quality center fielder or closer. But with injuries creating opportunities for bench players, it isn’t that uncommon to have depth that might be worth more to another team than sitting on their own bench. Or, that bench talent can replace regular talent, making it expendable. 2. The Opportunity Cost - The real difficult thing for some, it requires parting with a player who is producing whilst in the midst of a playoff run. No one wants a dud like Marcell Ozuna. A team has to be willing to take on the risk of parting with a producer. For #2, it appears that some believe that kind of risk is only for the offseason, before you know whether your team is going to be winning or not. It seems a weird psychological thing for some, that as soon as you’re succeeding, you have to hoard all the talent you have “because you just never know.” But it’s all just measured risk, no matter what time of year it happens. That’s just a scarcity mindset talking. Examples of Deadline Trades Like This Trades of MLB talent on both sides happen during the trade deadline with regularity. Typically 1-2 each season. Below are three recent examples akin to an Oneil Cruz-for-Mason Miller swap: Padres acquire Josh Hader from Brewers for Taylor Rogers (2022) The Padres acquired All-Star closer Josh Hader for closer Taylor Rogers, major-league pitcher Dinelson Lamet and two prospects. The Brewers were leading the NL Central and sought to replace Hader with Rogers, who had 28 saves at the time, while also converting Hader’s remaining control into longer-term assets. Cubs acquire Isaac Paredes from Rays for Christopher Morel (2024) The Cubs, who were in last place, got All-Star 3B Isaac Paredes for struggling major-league slugger Christopher Morel and pitchers Hunter Bigge and Ty Johnson. The Cubs desired an everyday third baseman, while Tampa Bay viewed Morel as a younger, higher-upside power hitter. The Rays, who were in the hunt for the wild card, took a gamble with the goal to ‘win now’ while also retooling. Cardinals get Jordan Montgomery from Yankees for Harrison Bader (2022) This one is a clear 1:1 example: the Cardinals acquired SP Jordan Montgomery in exchange for Gold Glove CF Harrison Bader. The Cardinals needed rotation help, the Yankees wanted a premium defensive center fielder. Both teams were the eventual winners of their respective divisions. This one is about as clear cut of an example of what Oneil Cruz for Mason Miller would look like. These are just some strong, recent examples. There are many others. The Bottom Line 📌 There were plenty of people who also just really prize Cruz, a miserable outfielder without a natural defensive position who strikes out 37% of the time. These folks love them some tape measure home runs, and dream on his incredible Statcast profile, and that’s totally fine. Disagreeing about the value of a player is what X exists to facilitate. I don’t like him, but you like him, fantastic. We can state our cases, get a little heated, and call it a day. Tomorrow we’ll cheer for Esmerlyn together. But this unfounded opinion that some trades simply can’t or shouldn’t happen because it’s the wrong time of year? Yeah, that’s not at all supported by anything but errant “conventional wisdom.” And that’s what The Early Shift is about -- exploring the unexamined fallacies. Go read the values statements in the FAQ. It’s about the courage to say the unpopular thing, even when it means conventional thinkers take their ball and go home as a result. #letsgobucs