Here is just an idea, that will make these trade proposals that everyone throws out at this time of year easier. I think as a group we need to create a way to assess trade value. Let's assume someone like Stanton has a trade value of 100 on a scale from 1-100. The reason being he is cheap, under control, insanely talented, and has a track record. These are just some possible categories that we could divide over 100%.

This is a model
Contract-
Talent-
Track Record-
Age-

Multipliers
Other Team Needs- 1.5
Depth Behind Player- 1.5

I mean this idea is kinda crazy but it would allow us to create more fair trades that would allow for more in-depth discussion rather than some of these trade proposals which seemed to be pulled from thin air. This model looks at age, talent (potential), what the player has proven, and contract. It also takes into account how desperately the other team needs the player and the depth behind the player which may make the trading team less likely to let the player go. Obviously a trade becomes fair after the values are close.

So how are you grading it out? For Stanton?

Contract- 25
talent- 25
Track record-25
age-25
total-100

Or are you saying?

Contract-100
Talent-100
Track-100
Age-100

I like the idea, it would definitely clear up some trade idea's?

The first one, except they wouldn't all be 25 because obviously some aspects are more important than others.
Maybe
Contract-20
Age-10
Talent- 50
Track Record-15

It seems like it would be more helpful to grade them, a la scouting reports. Percentages could be used to ascertain a value based on those tools, perhaps like those juricksoon suggested. I will use the following:

Talent: 50%
Contract: 25%
Age: 10% (contract is somewhat affected by age)
Track Record: 15%

For example, Stanton might be something like:

Talent: 80 (ridiculous wRC+ and wOBA; could hit 45-50 HRs in a full year; excellent defense)
Contract: 80 (around league minimum, 4 years of control left)
Age: 70 (will be 23 in 2013)
Track Record: 60 (2 years, missed 25-30 games in 2012; may be too early to tell)

(80 x .5) + (80 x .25) + (70 x .1) + (60 x .15) = 76

This may not be the optimal configuration of percentages, and the values I assigned were with only a moment's consideration, but this would give him a value of 76 out 80, and I doubt there are many, if any, players above him in this regard.

So for J Upton

Talent: 70 (IMO not as much as Stanton)
Contract: 55 (3yrs at $39, thats what 3-4 WAR a year to earn it)
Age: 60 (25, going into his prime years)
Track Rec: 60 (suggests at least a starting caliber COF w/ chance to be MVP candidate)

Going off Andy's scale (with a little rounding) that comes out to 69/80. I think that would be a good fit. I also agree with your #s for Stanton Andy.

Elvis Andrus

Talent: 70 (by position) how many people play defense the way he does, with his speed, with his potential.
Contract: 55 Cheap, but only 2 years left
Age: 65 he's only 24
Track Record: 50 still a lot to prove offensively

Overall: 63/80. Indicates that Elvis plus a little would be fair for Upton.

Stanton is a 76 and since both multipliers apply we can put his value at 152 and Andrus is a 63 as the Rangers have more depth behind him and SS isn't the biggest need for Miami, especially one with only 2 years of contol. Maybe if Andrus had more years this would apply as the marlins need players with control. So 152-63 is 89 so we would need to add 89 more points of value to get Stanton.
-
Should we make the talent portion 30?% current and 20?% potential?
-
So far we have these base values before multipliers.
Stanton-76
Upton-69
Andrus-63

Even though there are only 2 years left, he should provide substantial return on value above the price of the contract. I think you have to give Elvis's contract at least a 60, maybe 65. That brings him a little closer to Upton. Still, good ideas.

How would you factor in bad decision making like knee jerk reactions ala Soria in Miami? Need is subjective and will vary in a team by team case by case basis. Therefore I believe it should carry less weight. Oh and you forgot leadership. How else will we increase MY's value?

Seriously I think this is a great idea, but I would add that some trades are made purely for depth even when the prospects being traded for won't make an immediate contribution at the big league level. How then would we factor this in?

Shouldn't track record also take defense into account? I think Elvis is being short changed considering he is one of the league's best SS compared to Upton being much further down the list for CO.

Bad decision making is neglected. This is supposed to create fair trade value, so thus we ignore Loria's method. Leadership has no value or we would have Stanton, Felix, Trout, Harper, Price and Kershaw right now just for MY.

I'm confused by what you are trying to make by your last point, I think you are trying to say that this scale doesnt work for prospects, and I somewhat agree. But I am probably misunderstanding your point.

Maybe for a prospect scale we can do
Age Relative to Level: 35
Potential: 40
Minor Leauge Numbers: 25

So someone like Profar might be

80 or 28
70 or 28
65 or 16.25
This puts Profar at 72.25 and than we could subtract 10 from a prospect for simply being a prospect. So Profar's trade value would be about 62 or basically the same as Elvis's. I think the only multiplier that should be applied is if the player is a franchise cornerstone so players like Profar, D'Aunard, Miller, Walker have a multiplier of 1.25. So Profar's final rating would be 78. Based on this rating Profar, Andrus, plus a little something should be enough for Stanton.

@dark reins. I see what you are saying, but Elvis is a guy who has yet to hit over 300. Upton is a guy who was on his way to stardom before a down year last year, that is why he is a 60. Elvis like I said is a 50 due to the fact, that he is a guy that has yet to show he can be an offensive weapon throughout an entire year. Let's be honest Upton is a more talented player than Elvis. Elvis won't be winning any MVP's very soon, but he is a allstar caliber payer at a premium position and that is why his value is so good. The biggest thing that is hurting him is that his contract is only 2 years and I think his agent should be factored into the contract factor.
-
I think their should be a negative multiplier for injury prone. How about a .8 multiplier.

@ juricksoon you were spot on I should have elaborated more on my point. I think your scale proposal for prospects could work though it will be difficult to make that apply to say... Low A prospects given the significant variation in talent per league. Maybe we should limit this evaluation to 40 man rosters and give all other prospects a flat rating say 25.

Also this may have been discussed already but what weight should be given to pitchers especially ace pitchers. They only affect every 5th game. Should those multipliers be affected as well?

I dont think their should be anything extra for pitchers. The reason we can't give all prospects a 25 is due to the fact that a prospect like Rougned Odor deserves a much higher rating than lets say Zach Zaneski. Let me go ahead and do David Price to show why we don't need anything else, besides maybe a plus 25 for ace. I think we should actually have an addition for elite hitters as well, so people like Stanton would get an additional 20 after everything.

Age: 60 or 6
Contract: 66 16.25
Talent: 75 or 37.5
Track: 80 or 15
David Price's rating would be about 75 which is about right for someone who just one the Cy Young and is still very young. We would add the 1.5 mutiplier since he is a need for us and we would add 25 for price. So 138 for price and Elvis with the multiplier is 95. Which again is about right Elvis plus someone like Perez would be fair value for Price.

Agreed and I immediately thought of Price as well. Since we are trying to be objective should the elite bonus be cutoff be set at evals of 70?

I might argue that prices talent should have been 80 and age 65 due to pitchers prime being later and shorter than position players.

5 points here or there is not much. Hopefully we can get a full list of trade targets and our trade pieces to make these trade scenarios easier.
-
Again I don't understand what you mean on your first point. Are you trying to say that the cutoff for elite players should be 70? I don't think that's necessary as some people who have a rating in the 60s may get an elite player bonus whereas someone in the 70s may not. That last scenario is mostly due to contracts.

I simply meant, who should we consider elite? 65/70 and up? Or top ten percent of all evals? Otherwise our bias for certain players may skew our evaluations.

That wouldn't work simply due to the fact that a player may be ace quality but has a 6 year 140 dollar contract which may drop him below the cutoff.

Last multiplier
.75 for ridiculous contract ala Michael Young

So this is the Final Player evaluations Formula barring any Objections.

For Major Leaguers
Talent: 50%
Contract: 25%
Age: 10% (contract is somewhat affected by age)
Track Record: 15%

Multipliers
Other Team Needs- 1.5
Lack of depth Behind Player- 1.5
Injury Prone- .8
Bad Contract- .75
+20 for elite hitters after multipliers
+25 for aces after multipliers
(Note all Multipliers are from the initial grade so lets say someone has no depth behind them and is a need for the other team and lets assume his grade was 50. We would add the difference from both the multipliers so his grade would be 100 rather than 112.5)
-
For Prospects
Age Relative to Level: 35
Potential: 40
Minor Leauge Numbers: 25
Immediately Subtract 10 for being a prospect

Multipliers
1.25 Franchise Cornerstone
-
So I guess all we need to do is grade our main targets and our main trade pieces and we can start finding fair value.

Why the multiplier about Other Team Needs? Do you multiply every player that's not a throw-in by that when considering him for a trade?

Also, why are the additions for ace and elite hitter not the same?

Also also, I propose we have 2 levels of contract suckitude. Multiplier of .75 for an unfavorable contract (for example, trying to trade Ian) and .5 for a terrible contract (Young). I suppose this could be offset by cash considerations, but I'm not sure how to factor that into this assessment.

The Other team needs thing has a purpose but maybe not that much. I'll make it 1.25

So... For Major Leaguers
Talent: 50%
Contract: 25%
Age: 10% (contract is somewhat affected by age)
Track Record: 15%

Multipliers
Other Team Needs- 1.25
Lack of depth Behind Player- 1.5
Injury Prone- .8
Bad Contract- .8
Awful Contract- .5
+25 for elite hitters after multipliers
+25 for aces after multipliers

For Prospects
Age Relative to Level: 35
Potential: 40
Minor Leauge Numbers: 25
Immediately Subtract 10 for being a prospect

Multipliers
1.25 Franchise Cornerstone

Juicksoon very thoughtful analysis. Good GMs do that kind of analysis, though an over rider is team salary. That is why Toronto pulled off THAT BLOCKBUSTER, they had huge salary spending room, and the Yankees and Rangers for example did not, and if the Dodgers tried it would not have been approved after the Sox Sale-off. The Rangers would been a better fit with Miami, and Marlins did do due course and checked with other teams, even if the Rangers flipped Reyes or Andrus to Tampa. They basically did not have the salary flexibility. For rookies Baseball America already rates prospects on a 40 to 80 basis. So player rating systems are not new, read for example Money Ball. But your concept does have great credability.