The 2022 Major League Baseball trade deadline followed conventional wisdom. The contenders bought, those on the fringes fired off prospects hoping to ascend to the former’s category, and the sellers sold what little they had to them both for future assets.

Everything was warranted. Whether or not each move was enough is a different unanswerable matter. But from the Nationals trading Juan Soto to the Guardians dishing out Sandy León, the logic followed. 

The logic followed everywhere except for Chicago and Colorado. 

On the day of the trade deadline, the Cubs and the Rockies were 41-60 and 46-58, respectively. Chicago found itself fourth in the National League (NL) Central and 13.5 games back in the Wild Card, while Colorado found itself last in the NL West, 10.5 games back. Both clubs had a 0.0% chance of making the playoffs, according to Fangraphs. 

Both clubs also had a string of players they could’ve traded to benefit their farm system and their future. Willson Contreras, Ian Happ, and Andrelton Simmons could’ve been shipped out of the Windy City, while C.J. Cron, Chad Kuhl, Carlos Estévez, and Daniel Bard could’ve fled the Rocky Mountains. 

And yet, of the seven players, the Cubs and the Rockies traded no one. In fact, of the 29 teams in MLB, the Rockies were the only team not to make a trade. 

Instead, Colorado extended Bard - a reliever amid a career-best season yet is 37 years old and will be 39 when his extension finishes. For context, there are only five active relief pitchers 38 or older. Of that total, only Craig Stammen and Jesse Chavez have a 2.70 earned run average (ERA) or better. Colorado is betting on Bard not just maintaining his current level of play but earning the $9.5 million he’ll make the next two seasons. 

A safer bet would’ve been to trade Bard. To use his success this season and the shortage of capable relief arms on the market to fetch prospects that could bolster the current or future roster. 

The Rockies could’ve applied the same thought process to Cron, who is enjoying one of the best seasons of his career. Cron’s .845 on-base plus slugging (OPS) this season is 12th in the NL and ahead of fellow All-Stars Dansby Swanson, Starling Marte, Kyle Schwarber, and Jeff McNeil. 

Factor in Cron’s success this season alongside his contract guaranteed through next season, and Colorado could’ve gotten a good return for Cron. However, by keeping Cron on the roster, Colorado is signaling belief in their immediate future. 

But with a team that’s struggled this season and little help on the horizon, there’s little to believe that faith’s warranted. Especially with the Dodgers enjoying another stellar season with a salvo of future stars in the system and the Padres acquiring Soto, it’s near impossible for the Rockies to win their division, let alone make the playoffs. 

This misguided faith and refusal of conventional wisdom aren’t uncommon in Colorado. For example, with a 45-59 record at last year’s deadline, the team decided against dealing expiring free agents Trevor Story and Jon Gray. Both would leave the team in the offseason and leave Colorado with nothing save for draft compensation. 

These choices, both this year and last, indicate the confusion surrounding Colorado. They’re a team that cannot win with the team they’ve built, yet refuse to tear down what they have to create a new foundation for their future. 

This fear of shedding one era for another seems to be something plaguing the Cubs as well. Yes, Chicago moved several of their relievers in David Robertson, Mychal Givens, and Scott Effross. The return for the trio, however, seems underwhelming. 

For Robertson, Chicago received pitcher Ben Brown, the Phillies’ 26th ranked prospect, according to MLB.com’s rankings. Likewise, Chicago got pitcher Saul González, an unranked player in the Mets system, for Givens. Their most impressive haul came from Effross, who returned pitcher Hayden Wesneski from the New York Yankees. A sixth-rounder in 2019, Wesneski slots into Chicago’s farm system as their seventh-best prospect, per MLB.com. 

These three trades indicate the Cubs were motivated to sell. Logic would suggest they would follow conventional wisdom by the time the trade deadline ended. Yet the Cubs only sold on the fringes. Despite being mired in trade deadline rumors, the club inexplicably held onto Contreras and Happ. 

Their stay in Chicago would lead to the assumption that management envisions Contreras and Happ in their future. Surely, the club kept them both because they are part of the team that will come out of the rebuild, not assets that help shape it. 

Like the assumption that they would leave, the assumption Chicago wants to keep them is just as false. ESPN’s Jesse Rogers said last week the team had not had meaningful contract extension talks with Contreras since 2017. While that could change before the offseason arrives, there is little evidence to suggest the Cubs see Contreras as part of their future past this season. 

Instead, it seems the Cubs didn’t get enough an offer for the catcher’s services that made him worth trading. Something Cubs General Manager Jed Hoyer confirmed after the deadline, “He’s [Contreras] been a great Cub for six years now, and we never got to that place where we felt comfortable making a deal.”

Which begs the question: If Contreras isn’t part of the team’s long-term plans, wouldn’t anything be better than nothing? More than that, if Hoyer was willing to part ways with Javier Báez, Anthony Rizzo, and Kris Bryant last offseason, why is he unwilling to part with Contreras? 

If Hoyer is rebuilding this roster - which all signs indicate he is - how does he benefit from stepping one foot into the fire and one foot out? Why is he willing to accept a compensatory pick for a player that started the All-Star game instead of the multiple prospects he’d acquire via trade? 

While answers elude the general public, one thing won’t. The Cubs are on pace for their second losing season, while the Rockies are on pace for their fourth. Both had an opportunity to trade the few assets on their roster to help get themselves out of their failure. 

But instead of the promise of hope, the only thing surrounding the two are questions about the process and direction of the respective franchises.