Getting a free first baseman along with prospects who don't need protecting for a guy that was set to get crunched off the 40 man this winter feels creative to me, I dunno.
The difference between yesterday's direction towards a sell-off and today's suddenly cautionary approach may not be a coincidence. It's certainly possible that the Vazquez deal may have triggered an adverse reaction from either upstairs or the clubhouse that may have created an overnight change of tack. If they could trade Vazquez for two bags of Tier 4 balls, they could certainly have gotten at least a similar return for J.D., Eovaldi, Hill or pretty much anybody. The notion of being "both buyers and sellers," or "not getting a good enough return" doesn't ring particularly true. Nothing about this trade deadline activity gives me a warm and fuzzy.At the risk of engendering Rovin Romine's probably justifiable accusation of an emotive post: can someone please explain to me what the fuck just happened? I think the Hosmer/Pham deals might make sense for a team that's cooking that could use a little more depth (a la Steve Pearce) ...but why trade Vaz when he's having a decent year (and is durable as shit) if you're not selling off assets aggressively? Once again, from my perspective, Chaim's stuck betwixt and between. I'm beginning to believe he's deeply risk adverse - like it's a psychological issue. Doesn't wanna spend prospects, doesn't wanna spend big money, doesn't wanna sell impending free agents. Just what does he want to do? Find bargains? He under stocked the 2022 team in the off season, and then doesn't have the guts to do what the Cubs did last year at the deadline when they're floundering ...Man, he is deeply conservative.
Deep breath and give him the off season to see ... but seems pretty baffling right now.