Cahill traded to the Diamondbacks

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 9, 2025 7:37 PM EST

The Diamondbacks have acquired pitchers Trevor Cahill and Craig Breslow from the Athletics for minor leaguers Jarrod Parker, Collin Cowgill and Ryan Cook,

First, so I don't start a flame war, I am pointing out this is for fun. The subject of my next comment is a good, respectful poster, so I poke fun at him with a smile, and hope he smiles back.

Assuming he is a Dimaondbacks fan, iam2asian4u must be crushed. If instead he is just a Jarrod Parker fan, he may be happy; The A's play in a better pitchers park (I believe) than the Diamondbacks.

Tweet Comment 65 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Jarrod Parker (P - OAK), Arizona Diamondbacks

Comments

Bad trade for the D'Backs

Cahill’s a solid pitcher, but Parker could easily be just as good next year. That extra three years of control makes Parker the more valuable pitcher IMO.

by cgouds77 on Dec 9, 2025 7:57 PM EST reply actions

Not to me

I’ll take the guy who is less than a year older with nearly 600 MLB IP, an ERA under 4.00, an All Star appearance at 22 & legitimate flashes of brilliance. By a figurative mile.

I’m surprised Oakland didn’t get more for Trevor Cahill.

by Matt0330 on Dec 9, 2025 8:36 PM EST up reply actions

posted something very similar in the winter mtgs thread

I think they could have gotten more. Cahill is a solid innings-eater, maybe in his prime a very good #2, who’s been durable so far, and he’s only eight months older than Parker. Parker’s got loads of talent, but I don’t believe he’s a sure thing, and he comes with an injury history. The other guys are spare parts. I wouldn’t have traded Cahill for Parker unless I got another B/B+ guy along with him.

by PrincetonCubs on Dec 9, 2025 8:44 PM EST up reply actions

Arizona has plenty of high-risk, high-reward, minimum-salary elite arms.

What they don’t have is a lot of certainty, with just Ian Kennedy and Daniel Hudson as long-term rotation mainstay types. Adding another in Cahill while reducing the risk they have invested in their farm system is completely understandable. Gives them a better chance of repeating as NL West champs in 2012.

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 9, 2025 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

What three extra years of control?

Cahill is locked up for four years plus two option years. That’s 6 years of control, same as Parker(unless the A’s delay him until late June/early July). Obviously Cahill will cost a good bit more over that time period, but he’s also provided 4.7 fWAR and he’s 8 months older than Parker.

I’m a huge Parker fan, he’s in the top 15 on my overall prospect list, but I will consider it a pleasant surprise if he outperforms Cahill in 2012. I agree with Matt0330, the A’s should have gotten more in this deal, not a ton more, but maybe a Holmberg or Corbin(or even Miley) instead of Cook.

http://bullpenbanter.com

RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage

by gatling on Dec 9, 2025 11:46 PM EST up reply actions

Totally agreed.

If you include, say, Corbin this looks like a good deal to Oakland. With Miley, it’s reasonable. But as is…not impressive.

by nivarsity on Dec 10, 2025 1:43 AM EST up reply actions

At the same time

Cahill makes $30MM in the next four years. Parker will make, what, $5MM in the next four years (three minimum, one arb - maybe $10MM if he’s a Super Two)? Is Cahill $25MM (or $20MM) better than Parker from 2012-2015? Very debatable.

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 10, 2025 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

interesting move

seems sort of low upside for the As. Even if Parker reaches his ceiling, is it really that much higher than Cahill’s?

by walnut falcons on Dec 9, 2025 8:03 PM EST reply actions

Parker's great, but I'm not too impressed with this haul for Oakland

by nivarsity on Dec 9, 2025 8:20 PM EST reply actions

Agreed

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 9, 2025 8:25 PM EST up reply actions

Although

Cahill is overrated.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 9, 2025 8:25 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed, but...

He’s only 23, and under control through 2017 for a pretty decent price. Even if he never becomes anything more than a mid-roto innings eater, he’s still got a lot of value.

by nivarsity on Dec 9, 2025 8:28 PM EST up reply actions

True dat

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 9, 2025 8:52 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

Big Sexy

Follow KBR and Dewey on Twitter! @KBRandDewey

by King Billy Royal on Dec 9, 2025 10:05 PM EST up reply actions

So the A's

net the DB’s prospects # 2,14, and 23.

"I couldn't do that. Could you do that? Why can they do it? Who are those guys?"

by maxisagod on Dec 9, 2025 8:37 PM EST reply actions

And that's if you're bullish on Cowgill

I had him outside my top-20.

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 9, 2025 8:49 PM EST up reply actions

Hmmm

everyone seems to like this deal for the DBacks more than I do. It’s not like I hate Cahill or am crazy bullish about Parker, but I just liked Jarrod the person not the baseball player too much it seems. I really wish him the best, and hopefully he thrives in Oakland. I also hope that Cahill can give us that steady #3 we need at a good discount. The upside with Arizona’s pitching prospects must’ve been a deciding point here, as they get more of a sure thing but don’t sacrifice too much talent from their orgaization.

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 9, 2025 8:52 PM EST reply actions

Rany Jazeryli tweeted

Its the equivalent of the Royals trading LHP Mike Montgomery, OF David Lough and RHP Kelvin Herrera.

I disagree only because I think Parker is better than Montgomery. Maybe Jake Odorizzi would be a better match, although Parker is closer to MLB.

Using your favorite team, match or exceed the offer the D’backs made.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 9, 2025 9:31 PM EST reply actions

Montgomery has a more similar profile to Parker though

by CaptainCanuck on Dec 9, 2025 9:51 PM EST up reply actions

Monty is better than Odorizzi

By a lot

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Dec 10, 2025 12:15 AM EST up reply actions

really?

how does on quantify “a lot”?

by JoelGuzman'sScout on Dec 10, 2025 1:49 AM EST up reply actions

I think he's clearly better

He has better current stuff and projects to be a better rotation piece. Monty’s command wasn’t as good this year as it was in the past, but I don’t think Odorizzi is clearly ahead in that regard. Odorizzi is good, but I believe Monty is still a good bet to be a top of the rotation arm.

As for top 100 terms, I have Monty about 28 spots ahead.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Dec 10, 2025 9:47 AM EST up reply actions

i agree that Montgomery is better

R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix

by doublestix on Dec 10, 2025 6:43 PM EST up reply actions

The injury concerns me

But then again I guess Parker has an injury past too so they’re kinda similar in that regard.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 10, 2025 9:29 PM EST up reply actions

i disagree as well

i think Parker is better than Monty, and i don’t think it’s particularly close

by blue bulldog on Dec 10, 2025 2:27 AM EST up reply actions

-1

disagree

by vic1124 on Dec 10, 2025 4:10 AM EST up reply actions

+1

by auclairkeithbc on Dec 10, 2025 10:40 AM EST up reply actions

Well Parker > Montgomery, clearly (IMO, and I'm not alone)

But how on earth does Herrera get put in for Cook? It’s hard to say that the difference between two relievers makes up for the difference between two starters, but that certainly balances the scales a bit. Then again, Cowgill > Lough.

This Royals package is kinda underwhelming.

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 10, 2025 4:13 PM EST up reply actions

some things never change

cahill is still amazingly over-rated on this site. inning eater yes, potential #2 pitcher no

by Wheelhouse on Dec 9, 2025 9:46 PM EST reply actions

Jarrod Parker will be no ace

but he’s still likely going to end up a little better than Cahill IMO

Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 9, 2025 10:38 PM EST reply actions

I like it for the A's

Parker offers more upside, and I really don’t think the downside is much worse than what Cahill is now. Cahill offers upside as well, but he’s been pitching, peripherally, below his stuff for the past three years.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Dec 10, 2025 12:17 AM EST reply actions

Speaking Of Which

Isn’t parker the poster boy for pitching below his stuff?

I like this deal from the D’Backs point of view. They pick up a quality workhorse that they can insert into their rotation right away that still has a little upside in return for a guy that has a lot of upside but will almost certainly start the year in AAA and need to be on an innings limit.

Running a simple Marcel using an average of rWAR and fWAR has Cahill as a 2.5 WAR player right now. That would make him worth ~$38mm over the course of his remaining years, for an $8 million surplus value. Certainly Parker is worth more than that, but the D’Backs have two option years at the end on Cahill, which adds to the value of the asset.

Ultimately I see this as a deal between two teams shifting assets to better line up with where they are on the winners spectrum. The D’Backs are paying a small premium in total value because they get the wins now.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 10, 2025 2:44 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, I agree with that conclusion

Cahill’s GB rate should work very well in that ball park. I certainly don’t think it’s a bad trade for the Diamondbacks.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Dec 10, 2025 9:53 AM EST up reply actions

+1

“Ultimately I see this as a deal between two teams shifting assets to better line up with where they are on the winners spectrum. The D’Backs are paying a small premium in total value because they get the wins now.”

Well stated.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 10, 2025 10:51 AM EST up reply actions

10 wins = $38MM?

Unless I’m missing something, that’s way below the market right now.

Also, if you shift away from surplus value and look at wins/$, what has me slightly irked about this as an AZ fan is that we typically have a $70MM budget and want to win 90+ games, so about 35+ extra wins. 35+ wins for $70MM is not the kind of value that Cahill will provide, but Parker could do it in his minimum-salary years quite easily.

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 10, 2025 4:16 PM EST up reply actions

With the options Cahill is payed 56MM for 6 years

2.5 WAR for that time with 5% inflation is worth 87MM for 31MM in surplus value.
That is worth two top10 pitching prospects not just one plus a 4th outfielder without much upside.

That trade is outright bad from an A’s standpoint.

by Rio on Dec 10, 2025 4:36 PM EST up reply actions

Those numbers aren't very a very good way to gauge value

The fact that a forward thinking club like the A’s completely ignores them should tell you something about their value

by nixa37 on Dec 10, 2025 6:55 PM EST up reply actions

So we're just going to throw caution out the wind

And assume six years of durability? Especially when the big reason you’d expect so many pitching prospects for a true $31MM in surplus value is that pitching prospects get hurt a lot? Sure, that seems reasonable…

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 10, 2025 8:06 PM EST up reply actions

you could say the same about Parker too though

by blue bulldog on Dec 10, 2025 9:58 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly

That’s why top pitching prospects are believed to have relatively low surplus value compared to top position player prospects. But why simply assume full health for Cahill when calculating his expected surplus value?

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 10, 2025 10:30 PM EST up reply actions

"That’s why top pitching prospects are believed to have relatively low surplus value compared to top position player prospects"

By who? People on sites like these that cite Victor Wang’s research as if its some breakthrough that teams just haven’t caught onto yet? The idea that those numbers somehow represent current reality is insane.

As for Cahill, I would assume health because its an assumption. Obviously we’re going to have to make some if we want to project value. Of course he may get injured, but there really isn’t any reason to assume it at this point as he’s gone 178.2, 205.1, and 207.2 innings the past 3 seasons with no ill effects. Certainly seems like a far better bet to remain healthy than Parker does.

by nixa37 on Dec 10, 2025 11:15 PM EST up reply actions

Innings

That WAR projection is for ~167 IP per year, so the injury factor is already somewhat accounted for.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 10, 2025 11:54 PM EST up reply actions

Young pitchers since 1993

There have been 20 pitchers since 1993 who threw between 190 and 210 innings in their age 23 season. Those 20 average 166 at age 24 with a dropoff of 36 innings. That lines up very nicely with the Cahill projection.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 11, 2025 12:05 AM EST up reply actions

Performance

There were only 8 guys who had an ERA- of 86 to 103 with over 400 innings from age 21-23 since 1993. Those 8 averaged and ERA- of 94 in their age 23 season and an ERA- of 87 in their age 24 season This is a small sample, so there will certainly be some more regression, but still a promising outlook for Cahill.

The most interesting thing to me is there will be two new data points for next year. Cahill is obvious, but Mat Latos also fits the criteria and will be 24 in 2012.

Cahill ERA- of 93 in 583 IP
Latos ERA-of 93 in 429 IP.

Fight for licensed online poker in 30 seconds. Take part in the daily action plan!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Alliance-Daily-Action-Plan/240644152648049

twitter @PPADailyAction

by rwperu34 on Dec 11, 2025 12:25 AM EST up reply actions

Knowing Beane, I suspect Cowgill was important to the A's side of this deal

What do you want to bet he gets a shot at a starting job?

http://www.crawfishboxes.com

by OremLK on Dec 10, 2025 11:44 AM EST up reply actions

Probably

Surprised he didn’t ask for Adam Eaton as well. I really think he could have got one more piece for Cahill.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 10, 2025 12:10 PM EST up reply actions

Tried to get him when they moved Ziegler to AZ

Long-coveted piece by Oakland. Probably valued far more by the Oakland administration than most people here or in AZ.

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 10, 2025 4:17 PM EST up reply actions

Ground balls and....?

Other than a high ground ball rate, I don’t see much that would grade out as more than above average. Cahill doesn’t have elite command and he doesn’t miss bats. He’s got good stuff, but it’s not like you’d be throwing “plus” around. If they were going to trade Cahill eventually, I think they should be rolling the dice on a guy like Parker.

by ROBERTS04 on Dec 10, 2025 1:45 AM EST reply actions

love it for the dbacks

The NL West will be for Cahill what it was for Ian Kennedy. I’m setting the bar at 15 wins for him next year.

Parker is a good prospect, not elite IMO. His K rates were down last year and he has always had issues with control. Cowgill didn’t figure into our plans much anyways and profiles more as a 4th OFer.

by ScottAZ on Dec 10, 2025 2:00 AM EST reply actions

i'm still not quite sure how i feel about this trade

which probably means that the trade was relatively fair

by blue bulldog on Dec 10, 2025 2:28 AM EST reply actions

Maybe I am being a homer here, but I think the Rays got a better haul for Garza

I realize Parker is the best of the two trades, but Guyer, Lee, Archer are the next best and Fuld is servicable.

by raysrule44 on Dec 10, 2025 12:56 PM EST reply actions

Guess I expect more from Moneyball Beane

by raysrule44 on Dec 10, 2025 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

Well, yes, but he's by far the best prospect of that group

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Dec 10, 2025 2:06 PM EST up reply actions

I don't know about by far

Lee and Parker are pretty close to me, actually. Unless you mean at the time of the trade, then I can agree with you.

by cookiedabookie on Dec 10, 2025 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

I was speaking at the time

But even now, I’d take Parker without hesitation.

Bullpen Banter
MLB Bonus Baby
Twitter Account: @Ioffridus

by Jeff Reese on Dec 10, 2025 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

See, it is real close for me between those two, basically a coin flip

by cookiedabookie on Dec 10, 2025 10:40 PM EST up reply actions

#FamousLastWords

and Fuld is servicable.

Unless you really think that 10.2 UZR in 644.2 innings in the corner outfield spots is sustainable, I guess.

There’s also the fact that Garza was better than Cahill is now, with his ability to consistently pitch above his FIP (not just when he has a .237 BABIP) and success in the AL East.

Founder and Chairman of the Send Dan Some Pizzeria Bianco Commission (SDSPBC). SDSPBC is a totally, definitely for-profit organization.

by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 10, 2025 4:21 PM EST up reply actions