Two Strategies

The post-season for the National League has largely been the consequence of the two different strategies adopted by the Mets and the Cubs at the trade deadline.  The Mets were all-in at the deadline, the Cubs had reservations.

To be clear, I am not criticizing the Cubs decisions even in retrospect.  I would probably have done the same thing.  However, as things worked out, the Mets were successful largely as a result of the moves they made to address their urgent needs at the deadline, irrespective of future concerns.

Everyone knew the Mets had dominant pitching with more coming up through their farm system.  Up to the middle of the season when they got d'Arnaud and Wright back from injuries, they had little offense to speak of.  So they addressed that need by renting Yoenis Cespedes.  Cespedes was something of an afterthought for them after they failed to obtain Gomez from the Brewers, but it was certainly a fortunate one as things turned out.  They gave up two highly-regarded pitching prospects to get him but not their best two, Syndergaard and Matz, who had already been promoted.

The Mets correctly evaluated their position in terms of playoff possibilities.  They saw their best chance as winning their division and behaved accordingly.

The Cubs, on the other hand, behaved conservatively at the deadline.  There were rumors they were after a big name guy like Hamels or Price or Cueto, but in the end, they did not go big, choosing instead to fill perceived holes with role-players like Haren and Jackson, as well as some veteran rehab projects like Cahill and Richard.

It is likely the Cubs were willing to part with either Castro or Baez at the deadline, but, in the case of Castro, his value was destroyed by his awful first half, and, in the case of Baez, he was just coming back off an injury.

Really, though a lot of the Cubs reasoning looked to be based on the assessment that the best they were going to do was to make the wild card game, maybe as the home team, maybe not.  They were right about this.  The Cardinals were so far ahead, they were never going to be caught.

So, given your fate depends upon a single game, do you want to give up big chips for a genuine ace who likely will not even be your starter in the game that decides whether you advance to the NLDS or not and maybe is a rental in any case?  Clearly the answer is no.

The Cubs bet that their pitching and bullpen would hold up with a little tweaking, not a major overhaul, and that their offense would carry them.  By and large, they were right about this.  They had great starting pitching in the first half despite growing pains from Hendricks and the lack of a consistent fifth starter.

Again, I imagine they figured that a journeyman like Haren would address the fifth starter issue, which turned out on the whole to be true.  They also bet that Hendricks would straighten himself out and that Hammel would continue to pitch well.  They were right about Hendricks in the main, but, unfortunately, wrong about Hammel.

Still, they had a great run and they reached the final four and their core prospects nucleus is still intact.  I think they are likely to be perennial pennant contenders for a longer term than the Mets.