{"id":804554,"date":"2026-08-06T11:38:21","date_gmt":"2026-08-06T11:38:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/804554\/"},"modified":"2026-08-06T11:38:21","modified_gmt":"2026-08-06T11:38:21","slug":"the-big-board-autopsy-spotting-trends-in-the-wake-of-the-trade-deadline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/804554\/","title":{"rendered":"The Big Board autopsy: Spotting trends in the wake of the trade deadline"},"content":{"rendered":"

The immediate aftermath of the trade deadline is full of evaluations: winners, losers, grades and awards. We here at\u00a0The Athletic have even trained our eye on ourselves. Now we\u2019re wondering:<\/p>\n

How did our Big Board<\/a> do?<\/p>\n

In the end, 21 of the 60 players we listed on the board got moved. We use a red\/yellow\/green light system to evaluate the likelihood a player gets traded. In broad terms, a player with a red light would register as a surprising trade piece. A player with a yellow light is typically on a team caught between buying and selling or has extra years of team control on a seller; it can go either way. And a player with a green light is one who is being actively shopped.<\/p>\n

How did that system play out this year?<\/p>\n

The only one of our six red lights to be traded was Luis Garc\u00eda Jr., who switched from a yellow light to a red light in our minds because Curtis Mead had already been moved. (Last year, one of five red lights was traded: Taj Bradley.)
\nOne-third of the players with yellow lights were traded, which is pretty much in line with 2025, when 32 percent of yellow lights moved.
\nNine of 21 green lights were dealt, which is a little low. (It was 10 of 20 last year.) Part of this owes to individual team inactivity (we\u2019re looking at you, Cincinnati) and our choice to stock the last section of the Big Board (expanded from 50 to 60 this year) with guys likelier to be traded.<\/p>\n

As for our team fits, which always generate conversation in the comments, we didn\u2019t do so hot. Only five of the 21 players were traded to a team we listed as a best fit. This is always a difficult exercise, deciding which three of the dozen buyers that could use a starter work best for this specific one, or figuring out which team might force a bat into the mix despite the defensive fit being iffy. (We stand by our take that the Phillies were still not the best \u201cfit\u201d for Luis Arraez.) We were in the right area for a few guys: We pegged the Red Sox and Rays as fits for multiple catchers, but we didn\u2019t think Baltimore would trade Adley Rutschman in the division or that Tampa Bay would view Liam Hicks as a full-time catcher.<\/p>\n

But we\u2019ll go back to the drawing board on this for next year.<\/p>\n

And now on to the rankings. Four different reporters rank the potential trade candidates, balancing the different criteria (talent, immediate impact, team control, financial cost) in distinct ways. One thing we don\u2019t really take into account in the rankings is the likelihood of being traded, which is why so many of our top names stayed put.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s break it down further. (The players in bold were traded.)<\/p>\n

The obvious No. 1<\/p>\n

1. Tarik Skubal<\/p>\n

The trade deadline centered on one guy the whole time. This was a Skubal Watch from the very beginning, and he was moved in a late-night blockbuster a full day and a half before the deadline itself<\/a>. Putting Skubal at the top of our Big Board was inevitable from the moment the Tigers stumbled out of the gate, and his trade to the Dodgers was, in fact, the biggest deal of the week.<\/p>\n

Too good to ignore<\/p>\n

2. CJ Abrams
3. Zach Neto
4. Mason Miller
5. Joe Ryan
6. Hunter Goodman
7. Jackson Holliday<\/p>\n

One of our regrets regarding last year\u2019s Big Board was that it didn\u2019t include the biggest name moved at the deadline: Mason Miller. So this year, we wanted to err on the side of inclusion. That\u2019s why we kept Abrams and Ryan there even as reporting suggested it was increasingly unlikely they\u2019d be dealt, and that\u2019s why Holliday was a late addition when his name came up in reports.<\/p>\n

If anything, we still sweated this group being too small when late reporting suggested Hunter Greene and George Kirby also had a chance to change teams. Ultimately, no one from this group was traded (nor was Greene or Kirby).<\/p>\n

So, were we wrong to include these players on the Big Board, or is this group of non-trades a byproduct of the format itself? Each of these six was labeled with a yellow or red dot, meaning uncertain or unlikely to be traded. We knew these six were longshots, but that\u2019s usually the case with the most impactful, most valuable players. We simply couldn\u2019t ignore, based on reporting, the possibility that a team might make this kind of splash. Instead, the Padres and Twins ultimately decided to buy, while the Angels, Nationals, Rockies and Orioles sold without tearing their rosters to the studs.<\/p>\n

Controllable, movable assets<\/p>\n

8. Jos\u00e9 Soriano
9. Reid Detmers
10. Adley Rutschman\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a way, this trio justifies the six players who came before. Soriano was traded with two years of remaining team control. Rutschman was traded despite being a legitimate Orioles cornerstone under contract for another year. The fact that two of these three were traded is why we couldn\u2019t ignore the fringe availability of guys like Abrams, Miller and Goodman.<\/p>\n

The two trades that came closest to matching the size and scope of the Skubal deal were Soriano to the Blue Jays and Rutschman to the Red Sox. Those two moves involved prospects who ranked No. 42 and No. 47 on Keith Law\u2019s updated top 70 prospects list<\/a> (plus other notable prospects). The Skubal trade cost the Dodgers Nos. 26 and 41 on Law\u2019s list.<\/p>\n

So, in all, three of our top 10 players were actually traded, and each of those trades involved at least one top 50 prospect. That seems about right.<\/p>\n

Harder-to-predict situations\"\"<\/p>\n

\n Kevin Gausman went to the Cubs, while many others in this tier stayed put. (Winslow Townson \/ Getty Images)<\/p>\n

11. Otto Lopez
12. Xavier Edwards
13. Seiya Suzuki
14. Sandy Alcantara
15. Isaac Paredes
16. Kevin Gausman
17. Casey Mize
18. Emerson Hancock
19. Michael King
20. Liam Hicks\u00a0<\/p>\n

In our ranking sessions, this was always one of the murkiest parts of the Big Board. There was a lot of talent, but aside from a couple of rentals \u2014 Gausman and Mize \u2014 it was never clear if any of these 10 would actually be traded. And, in fact, only three were dealt: Gausman to the Cubs, Mize to the Padres and Hicks to the Rays.<\/p>\n

Of the seven who didn\u2019t move, four played for teams that bought at the deadline (Cubs, Astros, Mariners, Padres). It was always expected that the Cubs and Mariners would be buyers, but Suzuki and Hancock stood out as unique trade chips who could be dangled in an effort to address other needs. That\u2019s always easier said than done, and perhaps we overestimated the possibility of such a move (especially in Suzuki\u2019s case).<\/p>\n

Four players in this group came from the Marlins, who wound up trading only one of them (Hicks) while reportedly considering offers for almost everyone on their roster (at least on the position player side). The Marlins were an unusual case heading into the deadline because they had fallen hard in the weeks leading up, and we were at least correct in assessing that they were likely to sell with some potential to sell big.<\/p>\n

Readily available assets<\/p>\n

21. Luis Arraez
22. Clay Holmes
23. Daulton Varsho
24. Ryan Jeffers
25. Freddy Peralta<\/p>\n

Four of these five were traded, and if we expand to include some names from the group above, then we have seven of the 10 players ranked No. 16 to No. 25 who actually landed with new teams. That\u2019s not a bad hit rate in the middle of the board, and it\u2019s important to note that most of them were rentals, who are obviously the easiest assets to move. (All four who were traded in this group were green lights.)<\/p>\n

The Blue Jays were a little harder to predict with Gausman and Varsho, but they ultimately sold their top rentals (they traded Jeff Hoffman, too). The Mets were clearly going to sell and did so with Holmes and Peralta as two of the best starting pitchers to change teams. Arraez was the most readily available impact infielder on the market. If we could have given him a flashing green dot, we would have, because it was always inevitable that the Giants would trade him to the highest bidder.<\/p>\n

One notable exception from this group is Jeffers, who might have been dealt had the Twins not been hellbent on avoiding another sale after last year\u2019s trade deadline teardown.<\/p>\n

Teams that mostly leaned sell<\/p>\n

26. Adrian Morejon
27. Nick Lodolo
28. Taylor Ward
29. Jarren Duran
30. Lars Nootbar
31. Foster Griffin
32. Luis Garc\u00eda Jr.
33. Dustin May
34. Luke Weaver<\/p>\n

Another group that was heavily traded \u2014 six of these nine changed teams \u2014 but in many cases, it wasn\u2019t quite as obvious that they would be moved. One who stayed (Morejon) was at the center of conflicting reports about just how close he came to being dealt. He was the highest-ranked green light who didn\u2019t move.<\/p>\n

Ward and May were relatively safe bets to be traded \u2014 both were rentals \u2014 and Griffin, too, was obvious trade bait after it became clear the Nationals were going to sell rather than thread the needle. Nootbaar, Garc\u00eda and Weaver were traded despite having one more year of team control. That remaining control always makes availability difficult to handicap, but the Cardinals and Mets were clearly in rebuild mode, and the Nationals were in position to sell high on Garc\u00eda\u2019s breakout season at the plate.<\/p>\n

From this group, the two who never generated much smoke \u2014 at least not publicly \u2014 were Lodolo and Duran. One plays for the Reds, who wound up doing shockingly little at the deadline, and the other plays for the Red Sox, who were definitely buyers but had reason to try to thread the needle with their underperforming left fielder. Duran\u2019s value is low (so is his batting average) so it\u2019s hard to be shocked that he ultimately stayed put, even if he was an interesting trade possibility.<\/p>\n

A large group that largely stayed<\/p>\n

35. Shane Bieber
36. Francisco Alvarez
37. Gleyber Torres
38. Trevor Rogers
39. Michael Wacha
40. Matt Shaw
41. Jasson Dom\u00ednguez
42. Colton Cowser
43. George Springer
44. Robbie Ray
45. Christian Walker
46. Matt Chapman
47. Riley O\u2019Brien<\/p>\n

This group was always a weird, disjointed one. Bieber and Torres were rentals playing for sellers, but both have been hurt and neither was moved. Springer and Chapman are veterans having down years, and they also stayed put. Alvarez, Shaw, Dom\u00ednguez, Cowser and O\u2019Brien have several years of remaining control, and at least in the cases of Shaw, Dom\u00ednguez and Cowser, were included on the Big Board partly as younger players who could be traded by a buyer to address other issues. Wacha had a red dot because we didn\u2019t really expect him to be traded. Walker plays for the Astros, who wound up leaning to the buy side.<\/p>\n

Of this group, only Ray was ultimately moved. He was a green dot who we expected to change teams, though we certainly didn\u2019t have the Padres as one of his three most likely destinations. We didn\u2019t have San Diego on Mize\u2019s list, either. The Padres are always good for a few surprises.<\/p>\n

Contract quirks<\/p>\n

48. Mickey Moniak
49. Luis Castillo
50. Yennier Cano<\/p>\n

It\u2019s coincidence that these three wound up grouped together, but it\u2019s also helpful because one was traded as mostly a salary dump (Castillo) while the other two wound up staying with their current teams and signing contract extensions.<\/p>\n

So, only one of these three was traded, but it\u2019s worth wondering if the other two might have moved had they not agreed to terms beyond this season.<\/p>\n

Very little movement at the bottom<\/p>\n

51. Eugenio Su\u00e1rez
52. Jo Adell
53. JJ Bleday
54. Ty France
55. Jeff Hoffman
56. Trevor Larnach
57. Jake McCarthy
58. Brady Singer
59. Jorge Soler
60. Tyler Stephenson<\/p>\n

This seemed to be a group of (mostly) readily available role players, but only Adell and Hoffman were actually traded. That\u2019s in part because four of these guys (Su\u00e1rez, Bleday, Singer, Stephenson) play for the Reds, and the Reds wound up being one of the least active teams at the deadline. They were clearly in position to sell, but sending Nathaniel Lowe to the Guardians was their only trade of any consequence. They could have sold high on Bleday and tried to get something before Stephenson, Singer and Su\u00e1rez become free agents this offseason, but instead, they stood pat with no realistic hope of making the postseason.<\/p>\n

The Padres and Twins ultimately decided to buy rather than sell, which dashed any thought of selling high on France or trying to find a platoon home for Larnach. We were definitely right to have a green dot on Soler, who was so readily available the Angels designated him for assignment<\/a> the day after the trade deadline.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The immediate aftermath of the trade deadline is full of evaluations: winners, losers, grades and awards. We here…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":804555,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[2317,4818,2111,371,374,479,2318,2319,2320,1230,372,373,2321,2322,2323,2324,2325,2326,363,1189,369,480,2240,2328,2329,481,99,1231,974,2330,364,2331],"class_list":["post-804554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-mlb","tag-arizona-diamondbacks","tag-athletics","tag-atlanta-braves","tag-baltimore-orioles","tag-boston-red-sox","tag-chicago-cubs","tag-chicago-white-sox","tag-cincinnati-reds","tag-cleveland-guardians","tag-colorado-rockies","tag-detroit-tigers","tag-houston-astros","tag-kansas-city-royals","tag-los-angeles-angels","tag-los-angeles-dodgers","tag-miami-marlins","tag-milwaukee-brewers","tag-minnesota-twins","tag-mlb","tag-new-york-mets","tag-new-york-yankees","tag-philadelphia-phillies","tag-pittsburgh-pirates","tag-san-diego-padres","tag-san-francisco-giants","tag-seattle-mariners","tag-sports","tag-st-louis-cardinals","tag-tampa-bay-rays","tag-texas-rangers","tag-toronto-blue-jays","tag-washington-nationals"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/804554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=804554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/804554\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/804555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=804554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=804554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=804554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}