Hypothetically: Phillies Trade

[mattmitchl44]

It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

I, too, care very little about payroll. I want to accumulate prospects.

But you are willing to eat 37mil in order to get back a prospect just outside of the top 100.

Why not trade for NC (20mil), sign Quintana (9mil) maybe a vet reliever (4mil? Think Maton last year) and suddenly you're spending only 33mil and have the opportunity to get 3 prospects (or more) back at the deal, while saving the prorated money from trading them? Then, still using the Arenado fund, have about 4-6 million to do the same thing in 2027?

Simply put - because I'm not convinced of the probability that that approach would ultimately bring back more in prospect value than just trading Arenado, eating the $37 million, and getting a single prospect just outside the Top 100 now.

I can see where you could believe in that. I, however, do not.

Your logic is essentially "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." But your best bird in the hand is a non-top 100 prospect for 37mil.

I'm guessing Bloom won't do my scenario, so we will see what he gets for Nolan...

Yeah unfortunately due to how underwater Arenado's contract is. Per BTV, it takes about $22 million in player value or money to justify getting like a Top 101 - 125 prospect back. That may be a little variable, but that's sort of what I am seeing from some examples.

[Bomber1]

Spoiler

It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I know nobody agrees with me, but rather than pay all of Arenado’s contract and give the job to the useless Gorman, keep Arenado and trade or send down Gorman. Get a 3B prospect in another trade and he can be ready in 2028.
I expect Arenado to bounce back some. I have no such illusions regarding Gorman.

[mattmitchl44]

Spoiler

It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I know nobody agrees with me, but rather than pay all of Arenado’s contract and give the job to the useless Gorman, keep Arenado and trade or send down Gorman. Get a 3B prospect in another trade and he can be ready in 2028.
I expect Arenado to bounce back some. I have no such illusions regarding Gorman.

I don't disagree with Arenado possibly/probably bouncing back a little in 2026 ( but not enough to make him more valuable at the trading deadline). It's just that any difference between Arenado and Gorman is irrelevant for where they are going to be in 2026.

[Alex Reyes Cy Young]

Trading Nado accomplished very little. It’s kind of weird.

Trade Donny, Noot, WC and get players who can assist in the future hopefully near future.

Nado is just a dump it doesn’t help your progress on building nor will it help the now in fact it’ll hurt.

[ecleme22]

It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

I, too, care very little about payroll. I want to accumulate prospects.

But you are willing to eat 37mil in order to get back a prospect just outside of the top 100.

Why not trade for NC (20mil), sign Quintana (9mil) maybe a vet reliever (4mil? Think Maton last year) and suddenly you're spending only 33mil and have the opportunity to get 3 prospects (or more) back at the deal, while saving the prorated money from trading them? Then, still using the Arenado fund, have about 4-6 million to do the same thing in 2027?

Simply put - because I'm not convinced of the probability that that approach would ultimately bring back more in prospect value than just trading Arenado, eating the $37 million, and getting a single prospect just outside the Top 100 now.

I can see where you could believe in that. I, however, do not.

Your logic is essentially "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." But your best bird in the hand is a non-top 100 prospect for 37mil.

I'm guessing Bloom won't do my scenario, so we will see what he gets for Nolan...

Yeah unfortunately due to how underwater Arenado's contract is. Per BTV, it takes about $22 million in player value or money to justify getting like a Top 101 - 125 prospect back. That may be a little variable, but that's sort of what I am seeing from some examples.

It's funny you're fighting for this scenario as if it's a really good one.

[mattmitchl44]

It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

I, too, care very little about payroll. I want to accumulate prospects.

But you are willing to eat 37mil in order to get back a prospect just outside of the top 100.

Why not trade for NC (20mil), sign Quintana (9mil) maybe a vet reliever (4mil? Think Maton last year) and suddenly you're spending only 33mil and have the opportunity to get 3 prospects (or more) back at the deal, while saving the prorated money from trading them? Then, still using the Arenado fund, have about 4-6 million to do the same thing in 2027?

Simply put - because I'm not convinced of the probability that that approach would ultimately bring back more in prospect value than just trading Arenado, eating the $37 million, and getting a single prospect just outside the Top 100 now.

I can see where you could believe in that. I, however, do not.

Your logic is essentially "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." But your best bird in the hand is a non-top 100 prospect for 37mil.

I'm guessing Bloom won't do my scenario, so we will see what he gets for Nolan...

Yeah unfortunately due to how underwater Arenado's contract is. Per BTV, it takes about $22 million in player value or money to justify getting like a Top 101 - 125 prospect back. That may be a little variable, but that's sort of what I am seeing from some examples.

It's funny you're fighting for this scenario as if it's a really good one.

I don't think there are any really good scenarios involving Arenado. But, kind of like with Donovan, I would probably prefer they try to turn Arenado into the single highest quality prospect they can get rather than multiple lesser prospects. If you split it up into Castellanos, Quintana, RP if anything I would expect you get back more lower quality prospects.

[ecleme22]

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

I, too, care very little about payroll. I want to accumulate prospects.

But you are willing to eat 37mil in order to get back a prospect just outside of the top 100.

Why not trade for NC (20mil), sign Quintana (9mil) maybe a vet reliever (4mil? Think Maton last year) and suddenly you're spending only 33mil and have the opportunity to get 3 prospects (or more) back at the deal, while saving the prorated money from trading them? Then, still using the Arenado fund, have about 4-6 million to do the same thing in 2027?

Simply put - because I'm not convinced of the probability that that approach would ultimately bring back more in prospect value than just trading Arenado, eating the $37 million, and getting a single prospect just outside the Top 100 now.

I can see where you could believe in that. I, however, do not.

Your logic is essentially "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." But your best bird in the hand is a non-top 100 prospect for 37mil.

I'm guessing Bloom won't do my scenario, so we will see what he gets for Nolan...

Yeah unfortunately due to how underwater Arenado's contract is. Per BTV, it takes about $22 million in player value or money to justify getting like a Top 101 - 125 prospect back. That may be a little variable, but that's sort of what I am seeing from some examples.

It's funny you're fighting for this scenario as if it's a really good one.

I don't think there are any really good scenarios involving Arenado. But, kind of like with Donovan, I would probably prefer they try to turn Arenado into the single highest quality prospect they can get rather than multiple lesser prospects. If you split it up into Castellanos, Quintana, RP if anything I would expect you get back more lower quality prospects.

There’s no truth to that

[renostl]

Spoiler

It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I know nobody agrees with me, but rather than pay all of Arenado’s contract and give the job to the useless Gorman, keep Arenado and trade or send down Gorman. Get a 3B prospect in another trade and he can be ready in 2028.
I expect Arenado to bounce back some. I have no such illusions regarding Gorman.

I don't disagree with Arenado possibly/probably bouncing back a little in 2026 ( but not enough to make him more valuable at the trading deadline). It's just that any difference between Arenado and Gorman is irrelevant for where they are going to be in 2026.

To gloss over that NA does not want to stay in St. Louis seems like a mistake.
He a deteriorated player on both sides, especially if he repeats his 2024 on defense,
which was partially due to a balky back that could return. He needs to go.

Gorman has no guarantee of being a starter. JJ could be a longer-term answer there.

That is a lot of money to pay to get a prospect back and there no guarantee
that it does much on the 1 team that might be found that NA agrees to go to.
He will want playing time wherever he goes.

What if they did that with eleme idea with Nick?
Trade for Nick. At the deadline he's a RH bat without strings of NA.
IF he's on a 20 hrs pace he'll have suitors. You suggested adding $22M to NA
to get back a prospect in a very limited NA deal.
That would be essentially a free Castellanos. What's his BTV at with only $5M-$10M owed?