Diamondbacks open to trading a shortstop, perhaps for a catcher

22 Comments

The Diamondbacks currently have youngsters Didi Gregorius and Chris Owings fighting it out for their shortstop job, but they’ve weighed settling the battle with a trade, the Arizona Republic’s Nick Piecoro reports.

The preference would be to acquire a catcher who could potentially back up Miguel Montero in the near future and eventually supplant him as a starter.

“For us, it would have to be the right deal,” Arizona GM Kevin Towers told Piecoro. “Our biggest needs in our system are catching. If it’s the right, top-notch catching prospect. Someone we could have right behind Miggy. More of an upper-level guy. Maybe a top, upper-end starter. We have a lot of bullpen depth, infielders. Maybe an outfielder, but probably more catching and Double-A, Triple-A type starter.”

Of the two, Owings would likely have the greater trade value because of his offensive potential. Towers might prefer that anyway, as he’s already stated that Gregorius is the favorite to retain the job.

One obvious suitor for either player is the Mets, but Newsday’s Marc Carig says the two sides haven’t talked since the winter meetings. He adds that the Diamondbacks would probably want Travis d’Arnaud in return, which wouldn’t fly. The Mets have another solid catching prospect in Kevin Plawecki, but a source told Carig that he’s not the kind of talent Arizona is requesting.

The Yankees could also use a shortstop of the future, and catching is the one real strength in their farm system; Gary Sanchez has a high ceiling on offense and John Ryan Murphy could be an average regular or at least a really good backup. Towers also has a good working relationship with the Yankees, having worked in their front office before joining the Diamondbacks. A match there could be a possibility.

Rob Manfred walks back comment about 60-game season

Rob Manfred
Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Yesterday, on The Dan Patrick Show, commissioner Rob Manfred stuck his foot in his mouth concerning negotiations with the MLB Players Association, saying, “We weren’t going to play more than 60 games.” The comment was taken poorly because MLB owners, represented by Manfred, and the MLBPA were engaged in protracted negotiations in May and June over the 2020 season. Ultimately they couldn’t come to terms, so Manfred had to set the season as prescribed by the March agreement. In saying, “We weren’t going to play more than 60 games,” Manfred appeared to be in violation of the March agreement, which said the league must use the “best efforts to play as many games as possible.” It also seemed to indicate the owners were negotiating in bad faith with the players.

Per Bob Nightengale of USA TODAY, Manfred walked back his comment on Thursday. Manfred said, “My point was that no matter what happened with the union, the way things unfolded with the second [coronavirus] spike, we would have ended up with only time for 60 games, anyway. As time went on, it became clearer and clearer that the course of the virus was going to dictate how many games we could play.” Manfred added, “As it turned out, the reality was there was only time to play 60 games. If we had started an 82-game season [beginning July 1], we would have had people in Arizona and Florida the time the second spike hit.”

As mentioned yesterday, it is important to view Manfred’s comments through the lens that he represents the owners. The owners wanted a shorter season with the playoffs beginning on time (they also wanted expanded playoffs) because, without fans, they will be making most of their money this year through playoff television revenue. Some thought the owners’ offers to the union represented stall tactics, designed to drag out negotiations as long as possible. Thus, the season begins later, reducing the possible number of regular season games that could be played. In other words, the owners used the virus to their advantage.

Manfred wants the benefit of the doubt with the way fans and the media interpreted his comment, but I’m not so sure he has earned it. This isn’t the first time Manfred has miscommunicated with regard to negotiations. He told the media last month that he had a deal with the union when, in fact, no such deal existed. The MLBPA had to put out a public statement refuting the claim. Before that, Manfred did a complete 180 on the 2020 season, saying on June 10 that there would “100%” be a season. Five days later, he said he was “not confident” there would be a 2020 season. Some have interpreted Manfred’s past comments as a way to galvanize or entice certain owners, who might not have been on the same page about resuming play. There’s a layer beneath the surface to which fans and, to a large extent, the media are not privy.

The likely scenario is that Manfred veered a bit off-script yesterday, realized he gave the union fodder for a grievance, and rushed out to play damage control.