Trade Rumors

[themanwithoneredsock]

Betts 23
Pedroia 32
Ortiz 40
Ramirez 32
Bogaerts 23
Sandoval 29
Swihart 24
Bradley 26
Castillo 28

Shaw 26
Craig 31
Holt 28
Hanigan 35
(Vazquez 25)


Porcello 27
Buchholz 31
Miley 29
Rodriguez 23
Kelly 28/Owens 23

Uehara 41
Tazawa 30
Layne 32
Varvaro 31
Ross 27
Barnes 26
Kelly 28/Owens 23

Not an old team, but not a very young one, either.

 

[Alex Cole's Rec Specs]

If the White Sox want to trade Sale, we just have to beat what any other team is offering.

But they don't want to trade Sale. They don't need to trade Sale.

We do not have to outbid other teams, we have to outbid the value of the White Sox keeping Chris Sale, which is tremendous. Doesn't anyone understand that the White Sox GM has a responsibility to field a competitive team and show the fan-base that he has a winning plan? What kind of GM trades one of the best pitchers in baseball for a team's not best prospects and/or players?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

But they don't want to trade Sale. They don't need to trade Sale.

We do not have to outbid other teams, we have to outbid the value of the White Sox keeping Chris Sale, which is tremendous. Doesn't anyone understand that the White Sox GM has a responsibility to field a competitive team and show the fan-base that he has a winning plan? What kind of GM trades one of the best pitchers in baseball for a team's not best prospects and/or players?

Not all best players or prospects are created equal. As in the #4 or #7 or whatever in a top system could easily be a better return than the #1 in another system. For instance, I don't think you'd get much argument saying Manuel Margot is a better piece than the Tigers #1. If a GM is trumpeting his return based on the organizational ranking of the prospect coming back as opposed to the quality of the player, then he is likely not long for his job.

 

[kazuneko]

But they don't want to trade Sale. They don't need to trade Sale.
We do not have to outbid other teams, we have to outbid the value of the White Sox keeping Chris Sale, which is tremendous. Doesn't anyone understand that the White Sox GM has a responsibility to field a competitive team and show the fan-base that he has a winning plan? What kind of GM trades one of the best pitchers in baseball for a team's not best prospects and/or players?

Yes, it is highly unlikely that Sale is traded. That said, the reason this is being discussed is there has been media speculation that the White Sox might consider it. Whether this means they are planning a complete rebuild is unclear. With the long list of frontline starters available, it may also be possible that they are hoping to sign a top free agent starter and then deal Sale to fill other holes (Catcher, SS, 3b) on their roster. Undoubtedly they would be most interested in Xander, but it has been widely reported that they are also high on Swihart (the young starter that is probably the most tradeable for the Sox). It would also make sense that someone like Guerra might be appealing as a long term solution for their SS hole.
So let's imagine the White Sox were to end up with Swihart, Guerra, and Marrero (with Alexei Ramirez having never been much of a hitter and increasingly a poor defensive player - Marrero would be an immediate upgrade at SS) . If they were then to follow up by signing at top free agent starter, they would arguably be a much improved team next year and also end up with a younger roster and an improved farm system.

 

[moondog80]

That's the kind of price you're going to have to pay to pry him away. It may be 1 guy too much, but not "way" too much. It will absolutely take both Swihart and Devers. This is a guy who is signed for 4 years at a crazy good contract, and is probably the best pitcher on the planet not named Kershaw.

Swihart, Owens, Guerra doesn't even get Hahn to return a phone call. It is going to take Swihart + Devers/Moncada + Guerra to start. Shaw and Owens are interchangeable and aren't the core. The other 3? Absolutely.

What's the most recent similar deal? Donaldson? He had four years remaining and was pretty darn close to Sale in value, and he didn't generate a package nearly as valuable as Swihart + Devers + Guerra + Owens + Shaw.

 

[Alex Cole's Rec Specs]

Here is exactly the same discussion we are having about Chris Sale from a White Sox message board. Enjoy.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I think the first question that the White Sox need to answer is not about Sale, it's about the Cubs. They are a junior partner in a cross-city rivalry against a franchise that looks like it's going to be loaded for years to come. What's their plan?

Do they look at the Cubs and say, holy crap, we're going to lose this city if we don't immediately patch together a contending team like now?

Or, do they look at the Cubs and say the only way we're going to compete with these guys is do what they did, blow the whole thing up now and do a top to bottom rebuild? Because clearly any trade of Sale would be part of a top to bottom rebuild.

It really has nothing to do with the Cubs. The White Sox aren't going to lose the city because the Cubs already own it, from a baseball perspective.
The Cubs draw well whether they're good or bad. The White Sox draw well when they're good. If the White Sox can figure out how to get competitive again, people will come, regardless of what's going on on the North Side.

 

[kazuneko]

Here is an article in the Chicago media about a possible Sale trade. This suggests that Xander would be the target that would be most likely to change the conversation but it does seem like Swihart is also coveted.
http://www.csnchicago.com/white-sox/dealing-chris-sale-unlikely-could-expedite-white-sox-turnaround

 

[SoxFanForsyth]

What's the most recent similar deal? Donaldson? He had four years remaining and was pretty darn close to Sale in value, and he didn't generate a package nearly as valuable as Swihart + Devers + Guerra + Owens + Shaw.

We could go back and forth on this all day. For every deal like Donaldson, there's one like when the Cubs paid Addison Russell for 1.5 years of Samardzija, so what would a far superior pitcher who makes less money and is signed for 2.5 more years get? But I'm not going to continue down this path - we disagree about how much it would take, and I hope you're right and I'm wrong

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Rosenthal on twitter reporting the Sox got Kimbrel.

Ken RosenthalVerified account‏@Ken_Rosenthal
Source: #RedSox acquiring Kimbrel from #Padres. Return not yet known.

 

[Bigpupp]

Too slow

 

[JHU Sox fan]

Rosenthal reporting on twitter the Red Sox are getting Kimbrel

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 55s55 seconds ago
Source: #RedSox acquiring Kimbrel from #Padres. Return not yet known.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

We could go back and forth on this all day. For every deal like Donaldson, there's one like when the Cubs paid Addison Russell for 1.5 years of Samardzija, so what would a far superior pitcher who makes less money and is signed for 2.5 more years get? But I'm not going to continue down this path - we disagree about how much it would take, and I hope you're right and I'm wrong

Pretty sure you've got that the wrong way around, and neglected the fact that Beane unexpectedly found the A's in charge of their playoff destiny as Spring turned into Summer.

Otherwise, yeah. I guess.

The real problem is, that the second wild card seriously disincentivizes trading star players in the offseason. Because nearly every GM and FO in the league can convince themselves that, so long as they keep their best guys, their flawed team can be the next 2014 Royals or Giants, make a few minor moves, win a total in the high-80's, and take a puncher's chance at the World Championship.

And with 1/3 of the leagues' teams making the playoffs, most times that line of thinking isn't wrong.

 

[SoxFanForsyth]

Just to circle back, the Kimbrel trade is exactly why it's nearly impossible to figure out what a team needs to give up. That package is close to what people were suggesting for Sale, and meanwhile Donaldson goes to Toronto for (seemingly) less.

Point is, we have no idea what the market is. I may have suggested a package that is an enormous overpay in this market, or the ChiSox could want that and a Betts too. Just never know.

 

[SydneySox]

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself to stop posting fake trades then.

Glad you learned a valuable lesson.

 

[mloyko54]

Just to circle back, the Kimbrel trade is exactly why it's nearly impossible to figure out what a team needs to give up. That package is close to what people were suggesting for Sale, and meanwhile Donaldson goes to Toronto for (seemingly) less.

Point is, we have no idea what the market is. I may have suggested a package that is an enormous overpay in this market, or the ChiSox could want that and a Betts too. Just never know.

This isn't comparable to the Donaldson package. The Jays gave up a 24 year old established player who'd already posted a 4+ WAR season, their #1 overall prospect, two of their top ten pitching prospects. A Red Sox package comparable to that would be Swihart, Owens, Johnson, and Devers/Moncada.

 

[NoXInNixon]

We do not have to outbid other teams, we have to outbid the value of the White Sox keeping Chris Sale, which is tremendous. Doesn't anyone understand that the White Sox GM has a responsibility to field a competitive team and show the fan-base that he has a winning plan? What kind of GM trades one of the best pitchers in baseball for a team's not best prospects and/or players?

But how tremendous is that value? He's a 5-6 WAR player on a team likely going nowhere for the next several years. They're not making the playoffs in 2016. They're exactly the kind of team that should be trading a quarter for three dimes, especially if those dimes are expected to peak in value between 2018-2022.

 

[Alex Cole's Rec Specs]

But how tremendous is that value? He's a 5-6 WAR player on a team likely going nowhere for the next several years. They're not making the playoffs in 2016. They're exactly the kind of team that should be trading a quarter for three dimes, especially if those dimes are expected to peak in value between 2018-2022.

I respect your opinion that you don't think the White Sox can make the playoffs, but we're not talking about the Phillies or the Astros of 4-5 years ago. The White Sox have a good rotation, a good closer, and are one free agent bat away from having at least a middle of the pack offense. One could argue that is, in fact, a playoff team.

 

[NoXInNixon]

I respect your opinion that you don't think the White Sox can make the playoffs, but we're not talking about the Phillies or the Astros of 4-5 years ago. The White Sox have a good rotation, a good closer, and are one free agent bat away from having at least a middle of the pack offense. One could argue that is, in fact, a playoff team.

Good rotation, sure. Decent bullpen, sure although we know how highly volatile those are. But they were dead last in runs in the AL last year by 22. Their Team OPS+ was 91, with only Minnesota worse at 90. They are one free agent bat away from a good offense only if Mike Trout becomes a free agent. They could be a playoff team but only in the sense that anything could happen over a 162 game sample. They can completely stock their farm system with one deal, and they should.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

But how tremendous is that value? He's a 5-6 WAR player on a team likely going nowhere for the next several years. They're not making the playoffs in 2016. They're exactly the kind of team that should be trading a quarter for three dimes, especially if those dimes are expected to peak in value between 2018-2022.

This makes absolutely no sense. They have, arguably, the most valuable asset in the sport and you think it's in their best interest to cash in that quarter for three dimes? Seriously? There is no way Sale moves without getting a young, cost controlled stud back in return before we even get to the prospects. For the Sox that means getting a Bogaerts or Betts plus top prospects. The White Sox have zero incentive to move Sale for any collection of lesser talent that adds up to a similar projected WAR. None.

 

[swingin val]

But they were dead last in runs in the AL last year by 22. Their Team OPS+ was 91, with only Minnesota worse at 90.

The Twins were in the playoff hunt until the last week of the season.

 

[NoXInNixon]

This makes absolutely no sense. They have, arguably, the most valuable asset in the sport and you think it's in their best interest to cash in that quarter for three dimes? Seriously? There is no way Sale moves without getting a young, cost controlled stud back in return before we even get to the prospects. For the Sox that means getting a Bogaerts or Betts plus top prospects. The White Sox have zero incentive to move Sale for any collection of lesser talent that adds up to a similar projected WAR. None.

I think people are overvaluing Sale a little bit. Sure, he's a no doubt about it ace and Cy Young candidate. But it's not as if he's a once-in-a-generation guy you'd never dream of trading under any circumstances. He's nowhere near the most valuable asset in the sport.

He's a really, really, good pitcher on a team with very little depth in either the majors or minors and a lot of holes to fill. Sure, if absolutely everything breaks right for them maybe they sneak into the second wild card spot. But if they can turn him into a haul of prospects, and they absolutely could, they should.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

When you factor in his contract, I don't see how anyone could be more valuable. He's a top 5 pitcher in most meaningful stats and top 10 in the rest. 2nd in xFIP, 5th in FIP, 1st in K/9, 10th in BB/9 (which, unsurprisingly leaves him 3rd in K/BB), 3rd in FIP- and 2nd in xFIP-, T-1st in Z-Contact%. He's arguably the best pitcher in the game right now. He's indisputably a top 5 pitcher in the game and he's not even 27 years old. And his contract is incredibly team friendly with 9.5, 12, 12.5 and 13.5 million due to him in the next 4 years with 2018 and 2019 being club options with $1,000,000.00 buyouts.

I don't see how a credible argument can be made for another player being more valuable as an asset. No matter how badly you might wish he's available without giving up one of your best young players and at least one top prospect, it's a pipe dream even if the White Sox weren't capable of putting together a playoff caliber team while he's still under control. Since they are, there is zero chance he's moved for the kind of return you are hinting at.

 

[snowmanny]

I assume you are invoking the

exception to these kinds of statements.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

No. Sale is a more valuable asset than Trout, who is due 15.25, 19.25, 33.25, 33.25 and 33.25 million. If money wasn't a factor, sure. But it is and Sale offers a significant advantage there.

 

[snowmanny]

Woah. Fangraphs has Trout averaging almost 4 WAR/year over Trout. So is that potential 16 WAR worth the $54 Million over four years? And then he's controlled the (edit) fifth year. And his collapse rate has got to be lower, right? I see your point but if they were both on the market I'd offer more for Trout.

Edit: Oh shit am I a WARmonger?

 

[Alex Cole's Rec Specs]

I think people are overvaluing Sale a little bit...He's nowhere near the most valuable asset in the sport...But if they can turn him into a haul of prospects, and they absolutely could, they should.

I would say he's probably top 5. Dave Cameron says #6.

I don't think there is any reason the White Sox need to cash in Sale right now unless the GM of the White Sox is a Red Sox fan and thinks that Chris Sale belongs in a Red Sox uniform in exchange for a tidy, fair sum of Red Sox prospects, but not too many prospects nor the best ones, mind you.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Woah. Fangraphs has Trout averaging almost 4 WAR/year over Trout. So is that potential 16 WAR worth the $54 Million over four years? And then he's controlled the (edit) fifth year. And his collapse rate has got to be lower, right? I see your point but if they were both on the market I'd offer more for Trout.

Edit: Oh shit am I a WARmonger?

If Trout averages almost 4 WAR/year over Trout, you'd certainly have to offer more for Trout. That's just common sense.

Now that Salmon is long since retired, especially.

 

[soxhop411]

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

What would we have to add to a JBJ package to land Harvey, deGrom or Matz? (I assume the answer in the case of Syndergaard would be "too much.") And what about Wheeler?

EDIT: Turns out this is coming from Cafardo, so there's that...

 

[terrisus]

Woah. Fangraphs has Trout averaging almost 4 WAR/year over Trout.

If Trout averages almost 4 WAR/year over Trout, you'd certainly have to offer more for Trout. That's just common sense.

Yes, if Trout averages almost 4 WAR/year over himself, you'd certainly offer him more.

Now that Salmon is long since retired, especially.

WARF
Wins Above Replacement Fish
(Where have you gone, Mike Carp? Oh, for the days of Seabass)

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

There seems to be a general desire around here to get rid of JBJ - which, to my way of thinking is a little odd - if not downright weird.

But to play along ..

-They just traded their heir apparent OF Margot - so trading JBJ would necessitate a FA OF coming in - either Gordon or Heyward who are going to be Expensive and Very Expensive.

- I think the FO will only be interested in Harvey or Thor - so Harvey seems to be the realistic target.

- So - which prospects can DD comfortably include? One assumes the Mets would have little interest in Swihart. So we looking at Owens (highly likely) , Devers (borderline likely) , Moncada (highly unlikely) and Bentendi (highly unlikely) .

Would a JBJ+Owens+Devers + A ball flyer get it done? And then sign Gordon.

Edit - forgot Espinosa - who I would consider to be completely off the table.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

There seems to be a general desire around here to get rid of JBJ - which, to my way of thinking is a little odd - if not downright weird.

Not so much a desire to get rid of JBJ, more like thinking he might be a sell-high candidate. It depends on how you read his 2015 and what you expect going forward.

-They just traded their heir apparent OF Margot - so trading JBJ would necessitate a FA OF coming in - either Gordon or Heyward who are going to be Expensive and Very Expensive.

Yes, but if you think position players may be safer big-ticket FAs than pitchers, then putting yourself in a position where you need to spend $180M on a Jason Heyward rather than a Zack Greinke might be a good idea. I don't know if that's a valid assumption (somebody must have studied it at some point, but if so I can't get Google to cough it up), but it has a surface plausibility for me given the fragility of pitching arms.

 

[pokey_reese]

- I think the FO will only be interested in Harvey or Thor - so Harvey seems to be the realistic target.

Wait, what am I missing, why wouldn't they want DeGrom?

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Why would the Mets want JBJ? They already have an excellent fielding/questionable hitting CF in Lagares. They need offense to replace Cespedes and Murphy.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Why would the Mets want JBJ? They already have an excellent fielding/questionable hitting CF in Lagares. They need offense to replace Cespedes and Murphy.

Because we a) overrate our own assets, b) think other teams will take less than we want to give and c) don't follow other teams closely enough to understand what they actually need

 

[moondog80]

Why would the Mets want JBJ? They already have an excellent fielding/questionable hitting CF in Lagares. They need offense to replace Cespedes and Murphy.

There was a tweet in one of the other threads that they had interest.

 

[nvalvo]

Lagares has an injury that has seriously limited his throwing arm. So they may not be seeing him as playable at all until that recovers.

 

[Alex Cole's Rec Specs]

Because we a) overrate our own assets, b) think other teams will take less than we want to give and c) don't follow other teams closely enough to understand what they actually need

+1

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Lagares was playable in the World Series and his arm doesn't need surgery.
It just seems to me that a defense first CF would be very low on the Mets todo list, random tweet notwithstanding.

 

[Alex Cole's Rec Specs]

There was a tweet in one of the other threads that they had interest.

Indeed there was, though the tweet merely mentioned that the Mets were interested in JBJ, not that they had any intention of trading a SP to get him.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Because we a) overrate our own assets, b) think other teams will take less than we want to give and c) don't follow other teams closely enough to understand what they actually need

So you're saying the Cardinals won't trade us Wainwright for Vazquez?

 

[moondog80]

Indeed there was, though the tweet merely mentioned that the Mets were interested in JBJ, not that they had any intention of trading a SP to get him.

Sure, but the poster simply asked why they would want JBJ in the first place. I agree he isn't close to enough for one of the pitchers.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Can we stop the talk about any of the Mets' starters? We're not getting deGrom, Harvey, or Syndergaard without X or Mookie involved.

 

[nvalvo]

Lagares was playable in the World Series and his arm doesn't need surgery. It just seems to me that a defense first CF would be very low on the Mets todo list, random tweet notwithstanding.

All of that's true, and I agree with you. A friend who follows the Mets closely was really concerned about it, however. Most of Lagares' defensive value is in his arm, and most of his value as a player is in his defense. They have him on a very reasonable deal, however.

edit: also, I neither want to trade JBJ nor do I think he's a suitable centerpiece for a deal for an ace. Some here think this offseason is an opportunity to sell high on him, but I don't think you can get fair value for him right now.

 

[MikeM]

Yes, but if you think position players may be safer big-ticket FAs than pitchers, then putting yourself in a position where you need to spend $180M on a Jason Heyward rather than a Zack Greinke might be a good idea. I don't know if that's a valid assumption (somebody must have studied it at some point, but if so I can't get Google to cough it up), but it has a surface plausibility for me given the fragility of pitching arms.

When I found myself asking the same questions on that assumption earlier in the year, i couldn't seem to dig up any supporting data that wasn't at least a decade old and mostly founded in the steroid era.

On the surface though this line of thought strikes me as having the same general problems I had with the Pablo Sandavol signing last winter. With there being too much of an optimistic/absolute value being placed on age, defensive WAR, and the probability chance an already established 6+ year MLB player is going to get better rather then worse going forward. Except in this case it ultimately takes it a step further by forcing you into making a bet that Heyward plays out to be a HoF caliber player, which in itself is always going to be a terrible bet if/when paying the market price. Keeping in mind that as outrageous as 6 years may seem on Greinke, whose value as an elite guy worth that type of money right now is less in question imo, you might end up having to commit 9-10 years on Heyward. For me, 9-10 year contracts are the new "you just don't do it" that has replaced the previous 6 years on a pitcher concern.

Plus there is the whole rather reasonable possibility that Betts plays out to be a better player then Heyward, starting now and for a fraction of the cost over the next 5 years. Xander too for that matter, who's potential to add power to his game makes him the much better upside play (imo) as well...regardless how young Heyward still is. Trading either of those guys for Harvey, while creating a need to overpay yet another non-elite offensive player like Heyward/Gordon, is too much of an overly-cute solution. Especially when you can just pay the market rate we should have paid last winter on an upgrade starter, and be done with it.

 

[alwyn96]

Yes, but if you think position players may be safer big-ticket FAs than pitchers, then putting yourself in a position where you need to spend $180M on a Jason Heyward rather than a Zack Greinke might be a good idea. I don't know if that's a valid assumption (somebody must have studied it at some point, but if so I can't get Google to cough it up), but it has a surface plausibility for me given the fragility of pitching arms.

I think it's generally true that position players are usually a better bet to be healthy than pitchers, but I think that belief is already sort of baked into the types of contracts they receive. Like in his age 30 season Joey Votto signed a 10/$225 deal that runs through his age 40 season. Cano signed a similar deal through age 40. No one would give those deals to a pitcher. Even Kershaw's huge deal only goes through his age 32 season. I don't think you necessarily get a better bargain with position players - they just tend to get longer deals.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Why would the Mets want JBJ? They already have an excellent fielding/questionable hitting CF in Lagares. They need offense to replace Cespedes and Murphy.

Well ..

One, there's a tweet up thread indicating the Mets were interested in JBJ

Two .. The Mets don't have any players that would interest the Sox other than their starters. This should also be appearent to the Mets


So one can logically assume Bradley would be part of a deal for a Mets starter if they are sniffing around.

Obviously JBJ would not be enough. But does he have more value than the departed Margot? Who was usually considered robe the centre piece in any SP swap. You'd have to think so.

So could JBJ/Owens/Devers plus lottery ticket fetch a Harvey?

 

[Bowlerman9]

Well ..

One, there's a tweet up thread indicating the Mets were interested in JBJ

Two .. The Mets don't have any players that would interest the Sox other than their starters. This should also be appearent to the Mets


So one can logically assume Bradley would be part of a deal for a Mets starter if they are sniffing around.

Obviously JBJ would not be enough. But does he have more value than the departed Margot? Who was usually considered robe the centre piece in any SP swap. You'd have to think so.

So could JBJ/Owens/Devers plus lottery ticket fetch a Harvey?

No, but JBJ + Owens probably gets you Steven Matz.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Well ..

One, there's a tweet up thread indicating the Mets were interested in JBJ

Two .. The Mets don't have any players that would interest the Sox other than their starters. This should also be appearent to the Mets


So one can logically assume Bradley would be part of a deal for a Mets starter if they are sniffing around.

Obviously JBJ would not be enough. But does he have more value than the departed Margot? Who was usually considered robe the centre piece in any SP swap. You'd have to think so.

So could JBJ/Owens/Devers plus lottery ticket fetch a Harvey?

One, tweets don't mean a whole lot. Quite especially from a general account that no one has to assign their name to. Not that that makes a difference anymore, because, well, the media just throws shit against the wall these days and if they are right, they scored. If they're wrong, "hey man, it was just a tweet about a rumor I heard from a source I cannot divulge. It's not like I wrote an article about it."

Second, Bob's point is that if they are going to move one of their assets, why would they do it for a redundant piece? Any one of their SPs would fetch a nice return. As you mention, while the Red Sox's interests appear apparent (SPs), the Mets' seem pretty apparent as well with any logical assessment of their roster (see E5Yaz's post). So it makes no sense that they would be using a young, cost controlled SP in trade to acquire a CF whose main attribute is his glove, with a pretty large question with his bat, when they already have one of those and need offense, given they are going to see Cespedes is definitely gone and Murphy might also be.

In summary, his post could also be read as "that tweet is at best nonsensical and at worst complete bullshit because anyone who pays attention and knows what they are talking about would realize that's a terrible match for the specified piece coming from Boston and it was probably an intern that posted the tweet".

And no, that trade offer would not garner Harvey. JBJ is redundant, they have Wheeler coming back to fill a slot opened by trade/they could easily sign a cheap FA to fill the back end and David Wright is their 3B until 2020, so Devers is immediately discounted in blue if you want to play him elsewhere.