NEWSLETTER
Although he is pitching like an ace and is available in trade, it was already not a lock that White Sox lefty Garrett Crochet was going to get an absolutely monster return this Trade Deadline. Why? Because, thanks to injuries and role variations, he has never pitched anywhere remotely close to the volume of innings he’s already thrown this season (111.1). An acquiring team, then, would have to figure into its offer the possibility that he would be limited the rest of the season – maybe pitching in relief – and, also wondering how much he’ll have in the tank for the postseason, for which paying a hefty price in trade is often largely about.
Well, I would say things just got much more complicated:
When I saw that Jon Heyman tweet earlier today, I thought to myself, surely it isn’t saying what it kinda seems like it is saying. It reads like Heyman is reporting Crochet is planning (1) to refuse to pitch in relief or break his routine the rest of the way, either for the White Sox or any other club, AND (2) to refuse to pitch in a flexible role in the postseason unless he first gets a contract extension.
That’s a pretty dramatic proclamation right there, of a type we’ve maybe never seen before. So I was a little skeptical.
But now the report has been confirmed by the crew at The Athletic, which put it this way:
“With Crochet’s innings total already nearing maximum capacity, his preference is to stay on a starter’s routine, believing that structure would be best for his long-term health. At least some potential buyers are aware of Crochet’s current disinterest in becoming a high-leverage reliever or shifting into a hybrid role, unless the team that acquires him is willing to share in that risk and sign him to a long-term contract extension, according to league sources who confirmed Thursday’s report by the New York Post’s Jon Heyman.
The problem with that scenario is that a club effectively would be leveraged into giving Crochet an extension without knowing whether he would be physically capable of pitching in October, or effective while working in uncharted territory.”
How do you demand an extension in conjunction with a trade when you don’t have no-trade rights? This is how.
The only thing that is slightly unclear from the two reports is whether Crochet would comfortably pitch into October with a new team and without an extension if he’s kept on a starter’s schedule. Heyman’s report sounds one way, The Athletic report sounds the other. It kind of doesn’t matter, though, because Crochet’s massive innings total – relative to the rest of his career – already leaves open a huge question about whether he can pitch in the postseason if he’s kept as a full-time starter the next two months.
That is to say, the reports are pretty consistent on the most important things: Crochet is not inclined to move to the bullpen if some team acquires him, and that team should also be prepared to come ready with an extension offer if they want to ensure he’s as good to go as possible in October.
I totally get this from Crochet’s perspective, mind you, given that he’s making just $800,000 this year, and then has two arbitration years remaining. He is not going to make a whole lot of money through arbitration at this point no matter what, and it could go to almost zero if he were to suffer a serious arm injury in October. I’d want an extension, too, if I were going to put it all on the line for a new organization.
But, still, if it’s true, it’s pretty jarring to see that being reported.
And, as the intro implied, it has the potential to greatly impact Crochet’s trade value. I don’t think it COMPLETELY crushes it, especially because we don’t know just how open he is to a reasonable extension. Heck, on the right terms, this “demand” could even increase his trade value. That said, not every potential buyer is going to want to extend Crochet, even on reasonable terms, which means some buyers may have just been taken out of the Crochet market entirely. That, in turn, means his trade value takes a further hit at a time when the questions about durability were understandably already present.
One final thought on this is, of course, the potential broader market impact. Crochet is one of the most impactful pitchers known to be available in trade. If his market is now disturbed, at least for some buyers, wouldn’t that bump up the value of other pitchers? Especially starters?
I’m not going to tell you that Jameson Taillon just became the most valuable controllable starting pitcher on the market – there are a number of other starting pitchers who COULD wind up available and would surpass him. But I will tell you that maybe the desirability of moving him just ticked up slightly, in proportion to his perceived value.
