Chicago Cubs: Would deadline deal for Manny Machado have saved us?

For months, the Chicago Cubs and Manny Machado seemed endlessly linked in rumors. If they had acquired him, would this season have turned out different?

Let’s get this out of the way: with the unattainable gift of foresight, most Chicago Cubs fans would have traded Addison Russell for Manny Machado back in July.  Most fans probably would have included another prospect or low-level Major League guy as well if we could go back and do it again.

However, that’s not what happened.

With the information we had in July, most Cubs fans did not want to trade a one of the best defensive shortstops in the game (with admitted offensive shortcomings) for three months of control over a guy who doesn’t even play shortstop as his natural position.

Since we can’t go back and do it over again, we can only speculate on what could have been.  Let’s take a look at what we could have had and be honest and fair about what might have happened.

Chicago Cubs: What did the Dodgers get down the stretch?

To objectively discuss what impact Manny Machado may have had with the Cubs, let’s look at what he did with the Dodgers. In 66 games and 296 plate appearances, Machado slashed .273/.338/.487 with 13 home runs and 42 RBI.

While that’s a pretty good line, it’s not nearly as good as the .315/.387/.575 onslaught he put up in the first half of the season with the Orioles.  He also played a reasonably well-received and metrics-backed shortstop for the season.  Would this have helped the Cubs’ offense down the stretch? Yes. Probably. But maybe not as much as you may think.

More from Chicago Cubs News

• Cubs: Adrian Sampson is forcing his way into the conversation
• Projecting the Chicago Cubs bullpen to open the 2023 season
• Cubs fans are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel
• Justin Steele has evolved into a frontline starter for the Cubs
• The future of first base is murky right now for the Cubs

If we assume the Cubs would not have gone after Daniel Murphy had they picked up Machado at the deadline, we can look at their stats and do a rough comparison, though Machado was with the Dodgers about twice as long as Murphy was with the Cubs. In 35 games and 146 plate appearances with the Cubs, Murphy slashed .297/.329/.471; pretty similar to what Machado did with the Dodgers.

You could also make the case that the discrepancy in RBI (Murphy only had 13 runs batted in) had to do with his being asked to lead off. That, coupled with the fact the Cubs offense, as a whole, wasn’t all that great when Murphy came over explains a lot.

So, would adding Machado have helped any more than adding Murphy helped? Probably not.

The only difference being the Dodgers acquired Machado on July 18 and Chicago acquired Murphy on Aug. 21. We could make the case that adding Murphy a month earlier may have also done the same thing. (Although he was injured, so I guess that’s irrelevant).

Chicago Cubs: Would Machado have been any better?

To delve further into this topic, it’s probably necessary to take a look at what Machado could have offered down the stretch when Chicago really struggled scoring runs and fending off the Brewers.

Granted, Machado would have been facing different pitchers, but he was in the middle of a pennant race, the same as the Cubs. And, while Machado may have been slightly better than some of the other guys the Cubs played in the infield, he had arguably the worst month of his 2018 season in September, slashing only .275/.322/.477.

That’s hardly better than the combination of Daniel Murphy, Ben Zobrist and David Bote, the latter having a woeful final month. Still, all three were on at least 30 percent of the time – comparable to Machado.

The only noteworthy difference would be Machado’s slugging percentage. But, with the way Cubs  hitters were (not) driving in runs, he would have had to hit more home runs to really make a big difference. (He only hit four, the same number as Murphy).

Chicago Cubs: Numbers can’t tell you the whole story

In addition to the stat-driven comparisons and speculation, there is one piece to the Machado puzzle that can’t be qualified or quantified in any logical way.

As much as we probably feel like Manny Machado would have helped the Cubs win one extra game over the course of those final 66 contests, we have no idea what his presence would have done to others.  We don’t know what it would have done to team chemistry.  We have no idea if the move would have jumpstarted everyone in the Cubs lineup for the final two months.

We also have no idea if it would have signaled a panic button for players and fans given that we would have sent our “franchise shortstop” to Baltimore for three months of a guy who, while a great player, wasn’t even a shortstop.

My guess: Machado probably wouldn’t have made any difference in the ultimate end of the season.  Might he have gained the Cubs one more game and allowed us to enter the NLDS where something different might have played out? Sure. But, more than likely, given what transpired with the bullpen, offense and brutal schedule down the stretch, the end would have come regardless.  The Cubs were just put out of our misery in a Wild Card game rather than prolonging the inevitable down the road.

But, you know what they say.  Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe getting Machado would have propelled the Chicago Cubs to a World Series, Kris Bryant would have been a monster down the stretch and Pedro Strop never would have gotten hurt in that game because we would have been in a different place.

This is why you can’t live on “what-ifs” and “might-be’s.”  It’ll drive you crazy and if you’re still reading, you’re already fanatic enough.