What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
We have been working on coming up with a better system for looking at Trade Values. I submit my trade proposal for Giancarlo Stanton
Cruz 56Holland 60Buckel 49E. Beltre 40L Garcia 40
169/245 = +76 to Marlins
Seems like a lot to pay for Stanton. If we assume Stanton's value is actually 169 (can you show your work on this?), I'd prefer to keep our submitted value under 180.
On second thought, while that may be surplus value for them, it will also cost them more (Cruz and Holland each making a few bucks) and therefore I'm thinking they wouldn't take that trade, even if they considered it enough of a value for Stanton.
If Stanton goes anywhere, I imagine it will blow the lid off any attempts to calculate his trade value.
Miami would never take Holland or Cruz and it would probably take Profar to get it done.
That package wouldn't come close for Stanton.
Instead of making baseless formulas using subjective numbers for data, keep it simple. Use WAR. Take into account how many years the player has left on their contract, how much a player is being paid over the course of their contract, and use the $4.5M per WAR baseline.
In Stanton's case, he's looking at about $500K in 2013, $6M in 2014 (arb-1), $9.5M in 2015 (arb-2) and $13M-$14M in 2016 (arb-3). If you expect him to produce about 20.0 WAR in the next 4 years, that's $90M worth of value. Subtract the amount of money he'll be due in arbitration from that number , and that's about $60M worth of surplus value.
When considering a potential trade for him, put into focus that $60M of surplus value. That's what you'll need to make up for in terms of prospects. And even at that, you'll probably be looking at an overpay in the range of $20M-$40M worth of value. Maybe more.
@ Andy Stanton should have been 174 my formula only added 20 for elite. I am not sure if Miami would take Holland but they should be interested in Cruz in this situation. Must replace fan favorite for atleast one season or they could view him as trade bait if Marisnick is ready to start the season on the big club. I do think we would have to add one of Perez/Gallo/Beras(ptbnl) to get it done. I would be ok with that kind of overpay if we could still trade for another TORP sign Greinke. The FO may see trading Holland and Cruz's as a way to free up $ to sign Greinke. We get stronger Angels lose a rotain piece and we still have the flexibility to sign catcher/bullpen/starter.
Sorry about the errors on road now using phone.
Im taking your word on Stanton so 174 for him. I think we have to logical and realize that they have no use for Cruz, we have to take in account they are rebuilding.
Im taking your word on some of these guys as well.Holland- 60Buckel- 49Sardinas- (50*.35)+(65*.4)+(40*.25)= 52Akins- (45*.35)+(50*.4)+0 (Akins has proven nothing) = 35
So we give up 196 and they give up 174. That seems pretty fair.
In reality to get him we probably need to give up Drew Robinson as well because they see him as a major part of the future and make Akins, Zach Cone. So we would need to give up Holland, Buckel, Sardinas, Cone, and Robinson which is what I think would get it done, not a starting point but maybe a final offer. That's a pretty goof offer and probably near 80 points in surplus.
This is the formula being talked about to create trades. Equal value represents fair trades but obviously you need to use some logic in the trades.
For Major LeaguersTalent: 50%Contract: 25%Age: 10% (contract is somewhat affected by age)Track Record: 15%
MultipliersOther Team Needs- 1.25Lack of depth Behind Player- 1.5Injury Prone- .8Bad Contract- .8Awful Contract- .5+25 for elite hitters after multipliers +25 for aces after multipliers
For ProspectsAge Relative to Level: 35Potential: 40Minor Leauge Numbers: 25Immediately Subtract 10 for being a prospect
Multipliers1.25 Franchise Cornerstone
I get the whole point system your using, but there's a lot of common sense missing from the trade packages being offered. The Marlins would laugh at that trade. It would probably take all of those players PLUS Profar. You don't trade a transcendent talent like Stanton who is cheap and controllable til 2017 unless you're getting near superstar potential in return...and none of those players offered have that. And no, Holland doesn't count. He's most likely is who is. Given that, I would still make the trade including Profar...bc Stanton is that good.
If you're the Marlins would you take that deal? That should be the question when coming up with this stuff.
Understood, but the point of the system is to create fair trades.
At the same time Holland, Buckle, Sardinas, Cone, and Robinson is a damn good offer and I have a hard time believing Miami wouldn't at least sleep on it for a long time. I mean you know what you are getting in Holland and Buckle has decent potential. Sardinas was once thought as the better prospect than Profar. Cone has high potenital and Robinson has seemingly burst onto the prospect map.
The problem is, you're taking the wrong things into account.
"Franchise cornerstone"?"Age relative to level"?"Potential"?"Minor league numbers"?
With the exception of MiLB #'s, these are all subjective point values, and they're given by fans. What I mentioned above is objective, and the numbers you are dealing with are fact.
If you deal in minor league numbers, Chris McGuinnes would be a starter on the Rangers and Bryce Harper never would have been in the pros in 2012. Clearly there's more to it than that. As I mentioned above, if Stanton is going to make in the ballpark of $60M in surplus value over the next 4 years, that means the Rangers need to trade about $80M worth of WAR in terms of prospects, probably closer to $100M.
Ignore Eric. He is a young kid who is trying t get his own blog started so he gets on others and blows up all the threads with insults and hostile reactions to anything other than his ideas.. For all his purported experience he is just recently old enough to drink alcohol.
This value system that a few of you are trying to start doesn't work. Miami would not want Cruz. Gallo and Beras are not even eligible to trade yet. I agree, if you want a value system use war and $$. This is silly...
Yeah I get that they are not available to be traded yet. Did you notice the PTBNL? If the system doesn't work for you then don't use it. I agree there may be flaws but that doesn't mean its wrong. I could easily say that its flawed and subjective to state that Stanton will be worth X WAR and X $$$ for the next 5 years. Truth is none of us "knows" that. Personally I like the system because it forces you to take a good hard look at every player being included in a trade proposal ie. MiLB not just throw some names around that you pulled out of the air. For the purpose of getting people to make more fair trade proposals I think it is fine.
First of all my trade value for the Sardinas, Buckle, Akins, Holland thing is actually 176 as I forget to subtract 10 from Sardinas and Akins in the formula. So we would give up 176 to 174. That's the fair offer for Stanton, nut obviously that's not going to get it done as Miami would probably want at least 70 points in surplus for him. But Holland, Sardinas, Buckle, and Akins is fair value for Stanton, not saying they would take it but its fair.-Eric, if it doesnt work for you don't use it. Minor League Stats play into only 25% of the formula and we need to have it or someone who is young with lots of potential but has proven nothing would be worth a ton. How on Earth are you suppose to trade 80-100 million dollars worth of prospects in terms of WAR. Prospects are just that prospects, and we have no idea how their future will turn out as they advance through the minors and maybe into the majors. The process of this formula is to create fair trade scenarios which is for the most part what this does.
Chris McGuiness (spelling)
Age Relative to Level- 30 (24 in AA) = 10.5Potential- 45 = 18Stats- 60 = 15So 15 + 18 + 10.5 - 10 = 34 rounded
Thats not that much trade value Eric.
@ATXI thought of a system using WAR, it doesn't work. It's hard to predict surplus with the changing amounts of WAR and is it really fair to consider WAR when someone like Justin Upton puts up 2.1 WAR and Elvis gets 3.5 WAR at 1/3 the cost while Justin Upton OPS'd 60 points higher but plays in a position with higher demands and it was a down year. How do I take in account that we need someone like Upton but can part with Andrus? How do I take in to account the curve of a player when you have people like Michael Young bouncing all over the place? How do I know if Upton will rebound or if Stanton would translate better in a league with superior pitchers? How do I measure the WAR of someone like Profar, Olt, or maybe someone like Cosy Buckle? How do I know that David Price would be as dominant here when his Road ERA is almost 1.5 points higher, how will his WAR translate into this ballpark?
Please answer these questions first because I have a hundred more that make WAR to hard to measure in creating a fair trade. This Formula Works, try it.
Our prognostications if the future are necessarily hindered by a past that rarely repeats. As far as Stanton's 2012 numbers, he was injured the good part of the season, so I would suggest using an averaging mechanism for his WAR, though even this solution can be made complicated weighting the prior years.
Aside from WAR and money, Stanton gets points over prospects in that he has proven himself to be an MLB player,whereas some of the prospects may wash out. Another pesky weighting problem.
I don't know if a FO goes this far, but Stanton's WAR will produce more ancillary revenue in the form of merchandise sales and increased attendance.
Last, but most important factor, is for want of a better term, the greater fool factor. In an auction the winning bidder pays more for his object of affection than the rest of the market participants, often making these data driven evaluations near meaningless. Which is why there are auctions: if value were transparent then everyone would have the same pricing beliefs.
I have to believe our available stats and formulas are a mere shadow of what quality teams use, but these should be enough. Often the more info one has the worse he does with it.
If we also took a bad contract in Nolasco would that sweeten the deal for Stanton?
How about Elvis/Olt/Sardinas/Buckle/Mendez/Grimm + 6M for Stanton/Hechavarria/Nolasco? This gives us the option to trade Hechavarria and Elvis gives Sardinas 1.5 years to become MLB ready before Elvis subsequently gets traded.
Would TB or AZ be interested Hechavarria?
I really like this system, obviously it is not perfect and needs work, but it is something that at least gets some somewhat reasonable idea out there. The constitution wasn't perfect when they first made it...they didn't just throw it out the window and not use it.
The only problem with this system is that it creates fair trades that would in no way be accepted by the other team, take the Gincarlo trade for example. The two value might be similar, but Miami would be giving up a superstar, for no one in return who really has "superstar" potential. If we could find a way to somehow implement that, this system for fair trades would work a whole lot better. The trades that are offered are "fair" and would work for non-blockbuster trades, but for a big time trade the system is a bit flawed and needs a little work there. I do feel as though this could be a really good start to something very useful.
What would your value system offer up for David Price or James Shields? Dealing away all these prospects scares the crap out of me. The Rangers have been set back by trading the farm away (A-Gon,Chris Young) and they have built on trading star players for prospects (Andrus/Feliz). I believe the Rangers have the resources to get almost anyone in baseball, but would trading half the farm be worth it? I personally don't think so because of the long term effects, and I personally think that the Rangers would do good by upgrading the rotation, because the lineup could actually improve next season even without Hamilton. I say this because we can't expect Kinsler to have a down year, Cruz never went on one of his trademark hot streaks, Elvis will only improve, Young will not put up the same terrible numbers as last year (he will either be benched or improve). I think the lineup is in great shape especially compared to division rivals. The rotation is what will win the elusive World Series title for the Rangers. As it stands today Perez would most likely be a member of the rotation which would not be detrimental to the club, but it could be to his career and his psyche if he is not ready. If the other team can't score they can't win. Our lineup will produce as stands, but the 5th spot in the rotation drug the Rangers down after Feliz/Lewis went down.
Sorry for the length and I'm not devaluing anyones opinion and my opinion is no better than yours.
I like what primi is saying.
To me, the problem (or limit) to this formula is that every person has a different conception of what true talent levels are, how injury prone a player is in terms of the scale, what constitutes a "good" contract from a "bad" contract, and so forth down the line. Rather than creating a static paradigm with minimal wiggle room, this system fails in its malleability, which is why some posters are saying, "Yeah let's just give them Sardinas, Buckle, Akins and Holland because Stanton grades out at a 174 and my calculations say we'd be giving them 176 in return."
That's arbitrary. Trivial.
WAR throws subjectivity out of the equation because the data is evident. Whether each win is worth $4.5M or $6M, it doesn't matter. And as you say "You can't quantify what prospects are worth in terms of WAR," well, yes, yes you can. That's where scouting reports come into play.
Sardinas, Buckel and Akins each have 6 years of eligibility at the time of their Major League arrivals. Information leads to scouting reports, and scouting reports bring you to future WAR projections.
So if you propose we give up Sardinas, who may be an above-average ML middle infielder or just a utility guy, Buckel, who projects as a MORP, Holland, who is a MORP and Akins, who is highly questionable to ever reach the ranks of AA, then I'm probably going to tell you the Marlins will demand more than that. A lot more than that.
To get a franchise player, you have to give up a franchise player. Jurickson Profar profiles to be that guy for us. But as Mike Stanton is proven, Jurickson Profar is not. Even 6 years worth of him wouldn't be enough to acquire a talent like Stanton. That's where you delve into the next tier, whether it be a combination of Martin Perez and Mike Olt, guys like Rougned Odor and Roman Mendez, C.J. Edwards and Jorge Alfaro... all the way down the line.
The Marlins don't care about a bunch of fringe prospects. They want impact difference makers, which is exactly what they'd be giving up in return.
"You can't quantify what prospects are worth in terms of WAR," well, yes, yes you can. That's where scouting reports come into play.
Are you saying that a high minor league war translates into major league talent? I can't really find a site right now that projects minor league war at all. I'm interested in this.
Eric is basically saying that the Marlins aren't going to trade one guy who could potentially put up 8 WAR a year for 9 guys who all together might be able to put up that much. that's not how it works. Trading a bunch of fringe prospects for a super star isn't how trades go down unless the team taking the fringe prospects has a terrible FO. There's something to be said for quality over quantity here bc there are only so many spots to be fielded on the diamond. Yea all those guys y'all are suggesting probably can put up an equivalent WAR or whatever value you want to use as Stanton in a given year, but you are talking about like 4 or 5 guys putting up 1-2 WAR each, but needing 4 or 5 spots on the roster, whereas Stanton takes up one spot and puts up the same amount of value by himself. This is why you have to start talking about guys like Profar, Perez and Olt who have the potential to put up 4+ WAR by themselves, and you have to give up several of them bc none are proven whil Stanton is very proven.
Think you can use the Teixeira trade to gauge roughly what Stanton should bring in return:
1. Jarrod Saltalamacchia - ATL's #1 prospect in 2007 -- BA's #36 prospect overall -- BA's #1 C prospect -- in the bigs at time of trade;
2. Elvis Andrus - ATL's #2 prospect -- #65 overall -- 5th-ranked SS prospect -- at high-A at time of trade;
3. Matt Harrison - ATL's #3 prospect -- #90 overall -- 15th-ranked LHP prospect -- at AA;
4. Neftali Feliz - considered by BA to have the best fastball in ATL's system -- at rookie-level;
5. Beau Jones - decent LH-relief prospect -- at low-A.
So TEX got:
1. MLB's best C-prospect who was also ML-ready;2. a high-ceiling high-A SS prospect;3. a solid AA LH-starting prospect;4. a hard-throwing high-ceiling rookie-level starting prospect;5. a solid low-A relief prospect.
which eventually turned into.
1. an All-Star SS;2. an All-Star lefty starter with a #2 ceiling;3 an All-Star closer who could still become a solid starter;4. a C who hit 25 HR's last year at the age of 27;5. a 26-year old LH-reliever who has yet to make it to the bigs.
Comparing Teixeira and Stanton, at the time of the trade Teixeira had 4.5 seasons under his belt at the age of 27 while Stanton has 3 seasons under his belt at the age of 22 and might have even more potential as a hitter. Think Stanton might be more valuable trade-wise.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.