Cardinals Trade Grade = B+

[Talkin' Baseball]

Great deal for Boston. For the STL, meh.

If you say so.

[zuck698]

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

Teams make evaluation mistakes all the time.

The Mets let Johann Santana go to the Twins in the Rule 5 draft.

Everybody passed on Pujols until the Cardinals draft him in the 13th round.

Jeff Bagwell comes to mind. Just so happens that was also a Red Sox trade. Hopefully this one works out just like that one did for Houston.

[imetsatchelpaige]

Just saw ESPN does not share the enthusiasm.
They gave the Sox a B+.
They gave us a C.

[ScotchMIrish]

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

Teams make evaluation mistakes all the time.

The Mets let Johann Santana go to the Twins in the Rule 5 draft.

Everybody passed on Pujols until the Cardinals draft him in the 13th round.

Do you mean Houston? I'm not sure why a 20 yo was subject to a rule 5, maybe the rules were different back then?

No I mean Johan Santana:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_5_draft

BBR shows him playing for a HOU affiliate in 1997-1999.

Professional career
Santana was discovered in 1994 by Andres Reiner, who was a scout working for the Houston Astros at the time.[2][3] Santana's parents agreed to let him attend Houston's academy in Valencia. When Astros scouting director Dan O'Brien called Reiner and asked if he had signed Santana to a contract, Reiner reported that he was still deciding if Santana was a better prospect as an outfielder or a pitcher. After six weeks of training, Santana was told he was going to pitch. Santana did not like it and almost left, but Reiner convinced him to stay. While originally a center fielder, Santana was converted to a pitcher at the academy due to his arm speed. In 1999 he was named the Tovar Mérida Athlete of the Year.

Minnesota Twins
After the 1999 major league season, Santana was left unprotected by the Houston Astros and eligible in the Rule 5 draft. The Minnesota Twins had the first pick that year, the Florida Marlins had the second. The Twins made a deal with the Marlins: the Twins would draft Jared Camp with their first pick and the Marlins would draft Santana. The teams would exchange the two players with the Twins receiving $50,000 to cover their pick.[3]

I'm confused. If the Twins had the first pick why didn't they just draft Santana?

[Quincy Varnish]

The best thing about this trade is it shows the Cardinals are committed to acquiring prospects and not just offloading salary. Gray wouldn't have required a ton of cash to be kicked in if the goal were just a salary dump.

These are the type of long shot prospects that very likely don't move the needle. No one is a former 1st or 2nd round pick, no one is a big threat to become a future AS or 4-6 fWAR SP. Just JAGs and depth and maybe a distant future bullpen arm in Clarke - but you can always find proven plus bullpen arms for less then $20M.

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

I guess you could say that when they trade Donovan. I guess you could say that when they trade Arenado. And so on... You can spin any conversation to have a negative tilt. There are possibilities here. It's done. We'll see how it goes.

No - if Bloom trades a proven AS Donovan for another proven AS caliber player with years of control left at a position we need talent, there's a very high liklihood we get reasonable value back. Prospects are institutionally overvalued. Proven MLB players, with $ contracts attached are much more attainable.

See the Renteria trade in 1998/1999, heck we traded top prospects for proven talent with years of control. I'm not saying to give up a #1 or #2 prospect for another Renteria type, just a proven AS player already in the Majors. And maybe a lower ranked prospect to sweeten the deal if needed.

Even if the (unlikely) opportunity to trade Donovan for a “proven AS caliber” player presented itself, it would not make sense for the Cardinals. 1) Proven AS players do not get traded pre-arbitration, so whoever they acquire will be making as much or more $$ than Donovan. 2) Said AS player will be only be 2-3 years away from free agency. 3) The Cardinals cannot expect to be seriously competitive within that timeframe, so making such an acquisition would be pointless.

You want prospects because they’ll have 6 years of control in the majors, and three years making near the minimum.

[renostl]

The best thing about this trade is it shows the Cardinals are committed to acquiring prospects and not just offloading salary. Gray wouldn't have required a ton of cash to be kicked in if the goal were just a salary dump.

These are the type of long shot prospects that very likely don't move the needle. No one is a former 1st or 2nd round pick, no one is a big threat to become a future AS or 4-6 fWAR SP. Just JAGs and depth and maybe a distant future bullpen arm in Clarke - but you can always find proven plus bullpen arms for less then $20M.

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

I guess you could say that when they trade Donovan. I guess you could say that when they trade Arenado. And so on... You can spin any conversation to have a negative tilt. There are possibilities here. It's done. We'll see how it goes.

No - if Bloom trades a proven AS Donovan for another proven AS caliber player with years of control left at a position we need talent, there's a very high liklihood we get reasonable value back. Prospects are institutionally overvalued. Proven MLB players, with $ contracts attached are much more attainable.

See the Renteria trade in 1998/1999, heck we traded top prospects for proven talent with years of control. I'm not saying to give up a #1 or #2 prospect for another Renteria type, just a proven AS player already in the Majors. And maybe a lower ranked prospect to sweeten the deal if needed.

Even if the (unlikely) opportunity to trade Donovan for a “proven AS caliber” player presented itself, it would not make sense for the Cardinals. 1) Proven AS players do not get traded pre-arbitration, so whoever they acquire will be making as much or more $$ than Donovan. 2) Said AS player will be only be 2-3 years away from free agency. 3) The Cardinals cannot expect to be seriously competitive within that timeframe, so making such an acquisition would be pointless.

You want prospects because they’ll have 6 years of control in the majors, and three years making near the minimum.

Fair enough.

There is a situation where the team is doing similar to what the Cards
might attempt. Donovan is coming from a position of depth. He not being dealt
due to his paycheck or the team's budget but for the supposed needs of the team.
A team acquiring Donovan wants to make a run and see's him as need. Dealing from
their depth is what they would prefer. Sometimes teams have these guys stacked
much as the Cards do at C. It would not surprise me at all if Pages or Crooks were
moved in light of Pozo being signed.

I think Donovan stays if the return is only meh, I'm probably wrong.
Bloom acknowledged the need for veteran's lead. We'll see.

[Carp4Cy]

The best thing about this trade is it shows the Cardinals are committed to acquiring prospects and not just offloading salary. Gray wouldn't have required a ton of cash to be kicked in if the goal were just a salary dump.

These are the type of long shot prospects that very likely don't move the needle. No one is a former 1st or 2nd round pick, no one is a big threat to become a future AS or 4-6 fWAR SP. Just JAGs and depth and maybe a distant future bullpen arm in Clarke - but you can always find proven plus bullpen arms for less then $20M.

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

I guess you could say that when they trade Donovan. I guess you could say that when they trade Arenado. And so on... You can spin any conversation to have a negative tilt. There are possibilities here. It's done. We'll see how it goes.

No - if Bloom trades a proven AS Donovan for another proven AS caliber player with years of control left at a position we need talent, there's a very high liklihood we get reasonable value back. Prospects are institutionally overvalued. Proven MLB players, with $ contracts attached are much more attainable.

See the Renteria trade in 1998/1999, heck we traded top prospects for proven talent with years of control. I'm not saying to give up a #1 or #2 prospect for another Renteria type, just a proven AS player already in the Majors. And maybe a lower ranked prospect to sweeten the deal if needed.

Even if the (unlikely) opportunity to trade Donovan for a “proven AS caliber” player presented itself, it would not make sense for the Cardinals. 1) Proven AS players do not get traded pre-arbitration, so whoever they acquire will be making as much or more $$ than Donovan. 2) Said AS player will be only be 2-3 years away from free agency. 3) The Cardinals cannot expect to be seriously competitive within that timeframe, so making such an acquisition would be pointless.

You want prospects because they’ll have 6 years of control in the majors, and three years making near the minimum.

I hear that, but a "proven" player has a much higher liklihood of working out than a "prospect" who might well fail long before reaching the majors. Prospect values historically have been discounted accordingly but of late the prospect hype has taken over and on balance prospects cost too much in talent trade value for their risk adjusted expected value. Sure their is the potential cost savings, but again if they never achieve significant WAR, how is that really helping ?

Sometimes its worth paying the $ for a more sure thing.

Lengthwise, yes you look for someone with 3+ years of control, but we kept Renteria for 6 years After he was already an AS for Florida. And yes he got traded. Find someone at a position worth extending, that you want to build around. That's the opportunity from this Donovan trade. Not just another long shot pitching prospect that might burn out before finishing the long road to even reach MLB.

[mattmitchl44]

For the naysayers all I can say is this. Prospects often do not pan out. Correct. Odds are against either of the guys we got being stars ever. The concept is this - get as many prospects as you can and your odds of catching that lightning in a bottle rises dramatically.

This trade made end up on the trash heap of baseball history. Or 3 years from now Clarke may win the first of several Cy Young awards and headline the STL rotation for years. Boston might be kicking itself. I give the later very low odds but they do exist.

Lets see how it all shakes out including whatever return he gets for Donovan. Which BTW will NOT be a proven major league AS at some other position. Why is it so hard to understand value to teams varies based on situation and current strategy? Do you expect they can trade Donovan for a player as good as him with even more control? Why would another team do that?

Yes, people can certainly choose to be however miserable they want by downplaying the return for Gray, Donovan, etc.

Or, until proven otherwise, they could choose to give Bloom and Co. the benefit of the doubt regarding their ability to identify, acquire, and develop talent.

We're not going to start to have an answer for 1, 2, 3 years. And we're not going to have a perspective of how well this entire rebuilding did in putting the Cardinals back in position to be continuously successful for more like 3, 4, 5 years.

[mattmitchl44]

The best thing about this trade is it shows the Cardinals are committed to acquiring prospects and not just offloading salary. Gray wouldn't have required a ton of cash to be kicked in if the goal were just a salary dump.

These are the type of long shot prospects that very likely don't move the needle. No one is a former 1st or 2nd round pick, no one is a big threat to become a future AS or 4-6 fWAR SP. Just JAGs and depth and maybe a distant future bullpen arm in Clarke - but you can always find proven plus bullpen arms for less then $20M.

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

I guess you could say that when they trade Donovan. I guess you could say that when they trade Arenado. And so on... You can spin any conversation to have a negative tilt. There are possibilities here. It's done. We'll see how it goes.

No - if Bloom trades a proven AS Donovan for another proven AS caliber player with years of control left at a position we need talent, there's a very high liklihood we get reasonable value back. Prospects are institutionally overvalued. Proven MLB players, with $ contracts attached are much more attainable.

See the Renteria trade in 1998/1999, heck we traded top prospects for proven talent with years of control. I'm not saying to give up a #1 or #2 prospect for another Renteria type, just a proven AS player already in the Majors. And maybe a lower ranked prospect to sweeten the deal if needed.

Even if the (unlikely) opportunity to trade Donovan for a “proven AS caliber” player presented itself, it would not make sense for the Cardinals. 1) Proven AS players do not get traded pre-arbitration, so whoever they acquire will be making as much or more $$ than Donovan. 2) Said AS player will be only be 2-3 years away from free agency. 3) The Cardinals cannot expect to be seriously competitive within that timeframe, so making such an acquisition would be pointless.

You want prospects because they’ll have 6 years of control in the majors, and three years making near the minimum.

I hear that, but a "proven" player has a much higher liklihood of working out than a "prospect" who might well fail long before reaching the majors. Prospect values historically have been discounted accordingly but of late the prospect hype has taken over and on balance prospects cost too much in talent trade value for their risk adjusted expected value. Sure their is the potential cost savings, but again if they never achieve significant WAR, how is that really helping ?

Sometimes its worth paying the $ for a more sure thing.

Lengthwise, yes you look for someone with 3+ years of control, but we kept Renteria for 6 years After he was already an AS for Florida. And yes he got traded. Find someone at a position worth extending, that you want to build around. That's the opportunity from this Donovan trade. Not just another long shot pitching prospect that might burn out before finishing the long road to even reach MLB.

No team is going to trade their "Donovan" with 3+ years of control for your "Donovan" with just 2 years of control.

If you are going to get a "proven" player with more years of control, you are going to player who has "proven" to be less valuable than Donovan.

If you consider Donovan to be a "proven" 3 fWAR player with 2 years of control, you would most likely be able to trade him for a "proven" 2 fWAR player with 3 years of control, or a "proven" 1.5 fWAR player with 4 years of control.

You gain "upside", the ability to gain a player who may ultimately be more valuable than Donovan (a future 4, 5, etc. fWAR player) by accepting some risk because they are a prospect and not yet "proven."

The Cardinals don't need guys who are "proven" to be limited, they need guys with high ceilings if they can reach them.

[Quincy Varnish]

The best thing about this trade is it shows the Cardinals are committed to acquiring prospects and not just offloading salary. Gray wouldn't have required a ton of cash to be kicked in if the goal were just a salary dump.

These are the type of long shot prospects that very likely don't move the needle. No one is a former 1st or 2nd round pick, no one is a big threat to become a future AS or 4-6 fWAR SP. Just JAGs and depth and maybe a distant future bullpen arm in Clarke - but you can always find proven plus bullpen arms for less then $20M.

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

I guess you could say that when they trade Donovan. I guess you could say that when they trade Arenado. And so on... You can spin any conversation to have a negative tilt. There are possibilities here. It's done. We'll see how it goes.

No - if Bloom trades a proven AS Donovan for another proven AS caliber player with years of control left at a position we need talent, there's a very high liklihood we get reasonable value back. Prospects are institutionally overvalued. Proven MLB players, with $ contracts attached are much more attainable.

See the Renteria trade in 1998/1999, heck we traded top prospects for proven talent with years of control. I'm not saying to give up a #1 or #2 prospect for another Renteria type, just a proven AS player already in the Majors. And maybe a lower ranked prospect to sweeten the deal if needed.

Even if the (unlikely) opportunity to trade Donovan for a “proven AS caliber” player presented itself, it would not make sense for the Cardinals. 1) Proven AS players do not get traded pre-arbitration, so whoever they acquire will be making as much or more $$ than Donovan. 2) Said AS player will be only be 2-3 years away from free agency. 3) The Cardinals cannot expect to be seriously competitive within that timeframe, so making such an acquisition would be pointless.

You want prospects because they’ll have 6 years of control in the majors, and three years making near the minimum.

I hear that, but a "proven" player has a much higher liklihood of working out than a "prospect" who might well fail long before reaching the majors. Prospect values historically have been discounted accordingly but of late the prospect hype has taken over and on balance prospects cost too much in talent trade value for their risk adjusted expected value. Sure their is the potential cost savings, but again if they never achieve significant WAR, how is that really helping ?

Sometimes its worth paying the $ for a more sure thing.

Lengthwise, yes you look for someone with 3+ years of control, but we kept Renteria for 6 years After he was already an AS for Florida. And yes he got traded. Find someone at a position worth extending, that you want to build around. That's the opportunity from this Donovan trade. Not just another long shot pitching prospect that might burn out before finishing the long road to even reach MLB.

The MLB climate is different than it was when Renteria was traded. Teams chase after prospects for good reason - players are disinclined to sign extensions for anything less than top dollar, and typically prefer to test FA in an era when AS-caliber players make $30MM+/yr.

Also, would Renteria have signed that extension if the Cardinals roster looked the way it does now? Doubtful, IMO.

[RamFan08NY]

Cardinals trade grade

Fitts had just an OK full year for the Sox, with a 5.00 ERA in 10 starts. But he's young and there's potential there, it seems.

Clarke is among the top-five prospects for the Sox, so that's a really good return there.

GRADE: B+


Red Sox trade grade

GRADE: B


-USAToday

What could they have done better to earn an A?

Boston fans are asking the same question.

[Carp4Cy]

The best thing about this trade is it shows the Cardinals are committed to acquiring prospects and not just offloading salary. Gray wouldn't have required a ton of cash to be kicked in if the goal were just a salary dump.

These are the type of long shot prospects that very likely don't move the needle. No one is a former 1st or 2nd round pick, no one is a big threat to become a future AS or 4-6 fWAR SP. Just JAGs and depth and maybe a distant future bullpen arm in Clarke - but you can always find proven plus bullpen arms for less then $20M.

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

I guess you could say that when they trade Donovan. I guess you could say that when they trade Arenado. And so on... You can spin any conversation to have a negative tilt. There are possibilities here. It's done. We'll see how it goes.

No - if Bloom trades a proven AS Donovan for another proven AS caliber player with years of control left at a position we need talent, there's a very high liklihood we get reasonable value back. Prospects are institutionally overvalued. Proven MLB players, with $ contracts attached are much more attainable.

See the Renteria trade in 1998/1999, heck we traded top prospects for proven talent with years of control. I'm not saying to give up a #1 or #2 prospect for another Renteria type, just a proven AS player already in the Majors. And maybe a lower ranked prospect to sweeten the deal if needed.

Even if the (unlikely) opportunity to trade Donovan for a “proven AS caliber” player presented itself, it would not make sense for the Cardinals. 1) Proven AS players do not get traded pre-arbitration, so whoever they acquire will be making as much or more $$ than Donovan. 2) Said AS player will be only be 2-3 years away from free agency. 3) The Cardinals cannot expect to be seriously competitive within that timeframe, so making such an acquisition would be pointless.

You want prospects because they’ll have 6 years of control in the majors, and three years making near the minimum.

I hear that, but a "proven" player has a much higher liklihood of working out than a "prospect" who might well fail long before reaching the majors. Prospect values historically have been discounted accordingly but of late the prospect hype has taken over and on balance prospects cost too much in talent trade value for their risk adjusted expected value. Sure their is the potential cost savings, but again if they never achieve significant WAR, how is that really helping ?

Sometimes its worth paying the $ for a more sure thing.

Lengthwise, yes you look for someone with 3+ years of control, but we kept Renteria for 6 years After he was already an AS for Florida. And yes he got traded. Find someone at a position worth extending, that you want to build around. That's the opportunity from this Donovan trade. Not just another long shot pitching prospect that might burn out before finishing the long road to even reach MLB.

No team is going to trade their "Donovan" with 3+ years of control for your "Donovan" with just 2 years of control.

If you are going to get a "proven" player with more years of control, you are going to player who has "proven" to be less valuable than Donovan.

If you consider Donovan to be a "proven" 3 fWAR player with 2 years of control, you would most likely be able to trade him for a "proven" 2 fWAR player with 3 years of control, or a "proven" 1.5 fWAR player with 4 years of control.

You gain "upside", the ability to gain a player who may ultimately be more valuable than Donovan (a future 4, 5, etc. fWAR player) by accepting some risk because they are a prospect and not yet "proven."

The Cardinals don't need guys who are "proven" to be limited, they need guys with high ceilings if they can reach them.

That's why we could throw in a surplus lower level prospect or two from all these trades we've been making to sweeten the deal. Not a JJW or Doyle.

[mattmitchl44]

The best thing about this trade is it shows the Cardinals are committed to acquiring prospects and not just offloading salary. Gray wouldn't have required a ton of cash to be kicked in if the goal were just a salary dump.

These are the type of long shot prospects that very likely don't move the needle. No one is a former 1st or 2nd round pick, no one is a big threat to become a future AS or 4-6 fWAR SP. Just JAGs and depth and maybe a distant future bullpen arm in Clarke - but you can always find proven plus bullpen arms for less then $20M.

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

I guess you could say that when they trade Donovan. I guess you could say that when they trade Arenado. And so on... You can spin any conversation to have a negative tilt. There are possibilities here. It's done. We'll see how it goes.

No - if Bloom trades a proven AS Donovan for another proven AS caliber player with years of control left at a position we need talent, there's a very high liklihood we get reasonable value back. Prospects are institutionally overvalued. Proven MLB players, with $ contracts attached are much more attainable.

See the Renteria trade in 1998/1999, heck we traded top prospects for proven talent with years of control. I'm not saying to give up a #1 or #2 prospect for another Renteria type, just a proven AS player already in the Majors. And maybe a lower ranked prospect to sweeten the deal if needed.

Even if the (unlikely) opportunity to trade Donovan for a “proven AS caliber” player presented itself, it would not make sense for the Cardinals. 1) Proven AS players do not get traded pre-arbitration, so whoever they acquire will be making as much or more $$ than Donovan. 2) Said AS player will be only be 2-3 years away from free agency. 3) The Cardinals cannot expect to be seriously competitive within that timeframe, so making such an acquisition would be pointless.

You want prospects because they’ll have 6 years of control in the majors, and three years making near the minimum.

I hear that, but a "proven" player has a much higher liklihood of working out than a "prospect" who might well fail long before reaching the majors. Prospect values historically have been discounted accordingly but of late the prospect hype has taken over and on balance prospects cost too much in talent trade value for their risk adjusted expected value. Sure their is the potential cost savings, but again if they never achieve significant WAR, how is that really helping ?

Sometimes its worth paying the $ for a more sure thing.

Lengthwise, yes you look for someone with 3+ years of control, but we kept Renteria for 6 years After he was already an AS for Florida. And yes he got traded. Find someone at a position worth extending, that you want to build around. That's the opportunity from this Donovan trade. Not just another long shot pitching prospect that might burn out before finishing the long road to even reach MLB.

No team is going to trade their "Donovan" with 3+ years of control for your "Donovan" with just 2 years of control.

If you are going to get a "proven" player with more years of control, you are going to player who has "proven" to be less valuable than Donovan.

If you consider Donovan to be a "proven" 3 fWAR player with 2 years of control, you would most likely be able to trade him for a "proven" 2 fWAR player with 3 years of control, or a "proven" 1.5 fWAR player with 4 years of control.

You gain "upside", the ability to gain a player who may ultimately be more valuable than Donovan (a future 4, 5, etc. fWAR player) by accepting some risk because they are a prospect and not yet "proven."

The Cardinals don't need guys who are "proven" to be limited, they need guys with high ceilings if they can reach them.

That's why we could throw in a surplus lower level prospect or two from all these trades we've been making to sweeten the deal. Not a JJW or Doyle.

"Surplus lower level prospects" - by which I assume you mean guys ranked like below 10th or 20th in the Cardinals organization - aren't going to change the value of your trade package significantly.

[Carp4Cy]

The best thing about this trade is it shows the Cardinals are committed to acquiring prospects and not just offloading salary. Gray wouldn't have required a ton of cash to be kicked in if the goal were just a salary dump.

These are the type of long shot prospects that very likely don't move the needle. No one is a former 1st or 2nd round pick, no one is a big threat to become a future AS or 4-6 fWAR SP. Just JAGs and depth and maybe a distant future bullpen arm in Clarke - but you can always find proven plus bullpen arms for less then $20M.

If Clarke were all that, Boston wouldn't have let him go. They traded him for a reason.

I guess you could say that when they trade Donovan. I guess you could say that when they trade Arenado. And so on... You can spin any conversation to have a negative tilt. There are possibilities here. It's done. We'll see how it goes.

No - if Bloom trades a proven AS Donovan for another proven AS caliber player with years of control left at a position we need talent, there's a very high liklihood we get reasonable value back. Prospects are institutionally overvalued. Proven MLB players, with $ contracts attached are much more attainable.

See the Renteria trade in 1998/1999, heck we traded top prospects for proven talent with years of control. I'm not saying to give up a #1 or #2 prospect for another Renteria type, just a proven AS player already in the Majors. And maybe a lower ranked prospect to sweeten the deal if needed.

Even if the (unlikely) opportunity to trade Donovan for a “proven AS caliber” player presented itself, it would not make sense for the Cardinals. 1) Proven AS players do not get traded pre-arbitration, so whoever they acquire will be making as much or more $$ than Donovan. 2) Said AS player will be only be 2-3 years away from free agency. 3) The Cardinals cannot expect to be seriously competitive within that timeframe, so making such an acquisition would be pointless.

You want prospects because they’ll have 6 years of control in the majors, and three years making near the minimum.

I hear that, but a "proven" player has a much higher liklihood of working out than a "prospect" who might well fail long before reaching the majors. Prospect values historically have been discounted accordingly but of late the prospect hype has taken over and on balance prospects cost too much in talent trade value for their risk adjusted expected value. Sure their is the potential cost savings, but again if they never achieve significant WAR, how is that really helping ?

Sometimes its worth paying the $ for a more sure thing.

Lengthwise, yes you look for someone with 3+ years of control, but we kept Renteria for 6 years After he was already an AS for Florida. And yes he got traded. Find someone at a position worth extending, that you want to build around. That's the opportunity from this Donovan trade. Not just another long shot pitching prospect that might burn out before finishing the long road to even reach MLB.

No team is going to trade their "Donovan" with 3+ years of control for your "Donovan" with just 2 years of control.

If you are going to get a "proven" player with more years of control, you are going to player who has "proven" to be less valuable than Donovan.

If you consider Donovan to be a "proven" 3 fWAR player with 2 years of control, you would most likely be able to trade him for a "proven" 2 fWAR player with 3 years of control, or a "proven" 1.5 fWAR player with 4 years of control.

You gain "upside", the ability to gain a player who may ultimately be more valuable than Donovan (a future 4, 5, etc. fWAR player) by accepting some risk because they are a prospect and not yet "proven."

The Cardinals don't need guys who are "proven" to be limited, they need guys with high ceilings if they can reach them.

That's why we could throw in a surplus lower level prospect or two from all these trades we've been making to sweeten the deal. Not a JJW or Doyle.

"Surplus lower level prospects" - by which I assume you mean guys ranked like below 10th or 20th in the Cardinals organization - aren't going to change the value of your trade package significantly.

I was thinking more like 6 to 10, and at positions where we might already have other options. Or similar.

There's also the possibility of getting a bargain deal on a talented vet from a even lower budget team who doesn't want to pay an ARB 1 or ARB 2 year player who we could be interested in extended later. Probably requires a 3 way trade with someone else getting Donny and sending their prospects to Pitt or whereever. Then we keep all our prospects and just spend a little more cash, which we can easily afford right now. For the right guy its worth it.

[EastCoastDave]

Best thing about this trade is that Bloom got it done quickly. There was no exercising of a no trade clause, so that tells me Bloom, Gray and Gray’s agent were in sync. The deal may work out or not. With a better offense behind him, Gray may challenge for a Cy Young. I wish him luck. The Cards got a lefty and a righty, and, who knows, they may be great or busts. There’s a PTBN or cash coming to St. Louis and that player may work out too.

[CCard]

Cardinals trade grade

Fitts had just an OK full year for the Sox, with a 5.00 ERA in 10 starts. But he's young and there's potential there, it seems.

Clarke is among the top-five prospects for the Sox, so that's a really good return there.

GRADE: B+


Red Sox trade grade

GRADE: B


-USAToday

It appears they got a pretty good deal for Gray. While neither at this point is as good as Gray, they both appear to have enough talent to make up the difference. Who knows, maybe they'll take the next step? Cutting payroll for nobodies is something I do not accept, but it appears they got somebodies. I'm sure that there's enough talent to at least be an average pitcher. I hope.