I was reading the solidly-above-replacement-level Yankees blog rlyw.net this morning, and I came across a very interesting table. It listed the Runs Created at 2B for each team this year. I won't reproduce the whole list (seriously, check out that blog, it's interesting), but I share one thing:
NYY: 123 RC
CHC: 45 RC
That's a difference of 78 RUNS. It's really hard to imagine that one player could offensively be worth almost a run every other game over another MLB player, but here it is. Of course, Robinson Cano is the best 2B in the game, a HOF hitting his prime. When you consider the positional median is at 78 RC, he's an extremely good piece to have.
It's hard to believe that a team can provide so little value at a position, but that's what Darwin Barney does. Shockingly, Toronto got even less production from 2B this year, but the two teams are still outliers. You replace Barney with a bottom-quarter 2B and you'd still pick up around 20 runs.
If we adjust for Defensive Run Saved (the first run-based defensive stat I could think of), the gap closes…but not considerably. Barney saved 11 runs with his glove this year, but Cano saved 6. The gap is still 72 runs, which is roughly 7 wins from one position alone!
I'm not trying to use this as an argument to sign Robinson Cano. It's not. What I am saying is that even with Barney's defensive value, he's still one of the worst 2 or 3 2B in baseball right now. The Cubs can add 3 to 4 wins just by being average at second base next year. Can Alcantara be an average 2B next year? It's certainly possible. Even if he's bottom-quarter, though, he's probably still worth more than Barney. Barney's value is that he's a premium defensive replacement at 2B/SS and spot starter. Nothing more.
Barney has now played the 2B for the bulk of 3 consecutive seasons. In those seasons, his maximal line was .276/.313/.353, which was a wOBA of .294, "good" for a wRC+ of 79. His defensive wizardry was enough to convince BP that his WARP in '11 and '12 was 1.3 and 2.3, respectively. However, this year, BP had him at -2.0, with a True Average right at the Mendoza line. BP didn't even like his fielding this year, with a FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average) at -1.7, a change of 13 runs from 2011. I'm willing to give Barney the benefit of the doubt (and chalk this up to the relatively unreliable nature of defensive statistics).
Fortunately (if that's the right word) for Darwin, his splits are essentially even, with an OBP of .306 and .303 agaisnt lefties and righties respectively. He's sub-replacement level from both sides of the plate, but just so, so he'll find work on some team's bench for a few years, until the shine on his glove wears off. If the Cubs are serious about contending in 2014, though, Barney just can't be a starter. He just can't be.
Comments
I just figure most of who they are running out there now are placeholders. I’m guessing when one of the SS prospects are ready, it’ll just be a question of who has no learn 2B: Castro or the new guy.
joshQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Do you have a degree in assholes? If not, please leave.
BerseliusQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
(dying laughing), maybe Epstein is trying to do his old team a favor by bidding up their rival’s manager.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
What I did at proctology school is none of your goddam business, ok?
sitrickQuote Reply
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-wish-the-government-would-make-up-its-mind-who-s,33997/
(dying laughing)
JonKneeVQuote Reply
I hope they shop Barney this offseason as a SS. His bat sucks, yea, but I think his glove can still play SS. Lots of teams have bad SS (including the Cubs this year, dying laughing) but they might convince someone he’s a starter there.
I figure they start the year with Olt/Murphy at 3B and Valbuena at 2B, and then wait on either of Baez or Alcantera to come up. Additionally, Bryant may be able to man 3B by August/Sept. So even tho the IF will still be somewhat in transition, I expect them to get more production from it in 2014.
NateQuote Reply
Never been so disappointed after a 34-3 win over a good team. Already looking toward the draft:
1. Jason Verrett, CB, TCU
2a. Brandon Coleman, WR, Rutgers
2b. Cedric Ogbuehi, OT, aggy
3a. Aaron Murray, QB, Georgia
3b. CJ Barnett, S, OhSU
Kaepernick is starting to worry me. The OL has regressed from last year, but that was inevitable. The WRs have to be schemed open, basically, but Kaepernick is still missing open targets (visually and with his throws) and locking onto guys. I keep telling myself he hasn’t even started 16 games yet, but he’s regressing.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
What exactly was being satirized in that? I was too dumb to figure it out, so stopped reading halfway through.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I’m a big fan of RLYW. I don’t follow the Yankees as much as I did a few years ago, but that was a must read. Still check it out often.
dmick89Quote Reply
I know this is a baseball blog and all (really, I do), but this kind of thing irks me:
I pretty much dislike the Cowboys in general. I think Tony Romo started off as the luckiest QB in history. But something has happened recently that’s made me defend him: Cowboys fans.
The guy threw for 506 yards yesterday (Manning, 414). If you’re into QB rating, his was 140 (Manning, 129.6). Y/A was 14.06 (Manning, 9.86). Adjusted Y/A was 15.58 (Manning, 10.69). He had the game of his life, but made one mistake. He threw a pass that would have been perfect if it had been 6 inches more in front of his receiver, but a LB made a great play on to intercept (Manning also threw an INT).
So that’s all anyone’s talking about around here. Romo has the game of the year for QBs so far, and I’ve heard so many times how he “cost his team the game.”
Nothing about the defense giving up 517 yards and 51 points without getting a sack. DAL had three drives that didn’t result in points: Dez Bryant fumbled in the second quarter, 1 punt and the INT on the last drive.
Romo made ONE MISTAKE. It was a game that DEN was supposed to roll through had Romo and Dez Bryant pretty much kept them in it on their own. One mistake (that could be considered a great defensive play) and the Cowboys fans blame him. Pathetic.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ Omar Little:
1000% this.
BerseliusQuote Reply
If you are just now finding out how dumb Cowboys fans are, you’re doing it wrong.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
I’d argue not spending time around cowboys fans is doing it very right.
sitrickQuote Reply
I did an internship in Dallas, and I listened to a good chunk of Dallas sports radio. It was June/August, and there were only 3(.5) things that callers would talk about:
1. Dallas Cowboys football
2. Texas Longhorns football
2b. CHOKE-LAHOMA (I shit you not, they would say “choke-lahoma” more often than “oklahoma”)
3. Brett Favre
Keep in mind, this is the middle of baseball season and the absolute nadir of NFL popularity over the course of the year. Doesn’t matter, all Dallas cares about is football (and they have a serious penis envy with Oklahoma).
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
I’ve known this since I was 5 and decided to go another direction with my NFL fandom. They’ve started to infiltrate Rangers Ballpark, though, which is annoying.
I’m not really talking about the fans, though. It’s more the local media, who should know better than to simply perpetuate this moronic narrative. It’s the national media too. Like Rodney Harrison, who talked about the Chargers’ scouting report on Romo (who was a senior in college at the time) being that he’d mess up 1-2 times in the 4th quarter.
It just bugs me that so many people would rather repeat what idiots in the media spout trying to appeal to idiots than form their own opinion. Watch the games. REALLY watch the games. If you watched DEN/DAL yesterday and you think Romo cost DAL the game, maybe sports just isn’t for you. If you watch the games and think Yu Darvish is any sort of problem on the Rangers (plenty who do), maybe sports isn’t for you.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ Myles:
But they bristle when Josh Hamilton said it was a football town. They still talk about how that isn’t true. Yet a few weeks ago, the Rangers were playing the Angels in Game 162 (in a playoff hunt) while Dallas was playing San Diego. Guess which had better ratings? That’s right, Dallas (4x).
I don’t listen to callers, though. That would make my head explode.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
I listen to callers because part of me likes being angry.
MylesQuote Reply
Omar Little wrote:
Creating narratives is what the sporting press does for a living. The fact that they’re mostly moronic seems unavoidable.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I guess I just don’t understand why people seem to want to dislike the best players on their favorite teams.
If the Cowboys replaced Romo with Alex Smith (an average QB, imo), they’re 0-5 right now. Is that what the fans want? That’s what they’re asking for. If my team loses 51-48, I’m blaming the side that gave up 48…NOT the side that scored 51.
They complained all year about Yu Darvish giving up runs in the many 1-0 games they lost. When my team loses 1-0 or 3-2, I’m blaming the side that scored 0-2 runs…NOT the side that gave up 1-3.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
Perfect game for Wacha through 5 innings.
BerseliusQuote Reply
No hitter through 6.
Aisle424Quote Reply
The Pirates coming back and winning right now would be awesome.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I’m a total jinx (dying laughing)
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Stockton’s pronunciation of Tabata is about all I’m getting this year in terms of Stockton player name fails.
The way he pronounces error (era) still makes the skin crawl.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
If you average Barney’s rWAR and fWAR you get replacement level so improving to average would add exactly 2 wins. However, this assumes Barney is a replacement level player and he’s likely about 1 WAR thanks to his defense. So you’d add 1 win by getting an average 2nd baseman, which means you should pay about 5 to 6 million for that player next year. Probably not a lot of league average 2nd basemen available at that low a cost for next year.
I get that’s not the point of this article, but if the Cubs are going to replace him, they’d want more than a win unless he’s replaced by someone making less than he is.
dmick89Quote Reply
What I don’t understand is why Watkins was not playing more last year. I don’t think that Watkins is any type of savior but it is clear that Barney is not the future. Barney has had three years and has shown that he cannot hit big league pitching well enough to be an everyday player. What would have it hurt to play Watkins 3 out of every 4 days in order to better value his worth?
Jim LQuote Reply
@ Jim L:
Ask Sveum
SVBQuote Reply
@ Today’s comments.
(dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)
SVBQuote Reply
So the Cubs have been rumored/speculated to be a landing spot for David Price if the Rays trade him. Here are the last 2 trades the Rays made for good pitchers with 2 yrs left of control by the team.
Seems to me that Price is better than either Garza or Shields. Wonder what it would take to get him. And if it is worth it. Maybe not for 2014, but maybe so for 2015. I assume we’d have to trade one of our IF prospects. The Rays seem to need an SS from what I see–Yunel Escobar.
Carlos Villanueva, Kyle Hendricks, Matt Sczuruzxr, Jae Hoon Ha, and Almora/Alcantara (one or other)? I assume Soler/Baez/Bryant are untouchable. Problem is that I don’t see a Wil Myers type on our minor league roster. If the Rays want a 2014 mid-year starting line up guy, I don’t see a fit.
SVBQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
Unless it’s Castro
SVBQuote Reply
SVBQuote Reply
@ Omar Little:
That I have no answer for.
uncle dave on the goQuote Reply
@ SVB:
At the time, Baseball America had Archer as #27 in the MLB. To get Price, we’d probably have to give up something like Almora, Alcantara, +.
Would you guys trade Almora, Alcantara, and Castillo for two years of Price (who isn’t all that cheap)?
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
Definitely.
MylesQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
Almora’s a top 25 guy and Alcantara may push the top 50. You’re giving up both of them plus a major league catcher on the right side of the development curve? That’d be a fleecing.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
I wouldn’t make that trade, but I don’t think Almora or Alcantara are going to be as high as you do. They’re also both the type of prospects (low power) guys who are appealing, but not the most appealing guys.
BTW, I have a very hard time believing Almora is a top 25 guy. I think if we see him in the top 25, it’s going to lead me to wonder how much these guys are overrating the Cubs farm system. Baez, Bryant, sure, but I don’t think there’s another top 25 guy in the minors right now. Soler was 42 by mlb.com and 34 by BA. He played in 55 games that were pretty good, but he didn’t exactly set the world on fire. The only way he moves up is if the system is being overrated. Almora is a top 50 guy, but not a top 25. I wouldn’t be surprised if Soler got pushed out of the top 50. I don’t think there’s much of a chance that Alcantara ends up in the top 50. If that happens, then I’ll have no problem saying the system is being wildly overrated. He is not a top 50 prospect. He’s a good one, but he’s more in the 75-100 type of guy.
A case could easily be made that Baez is a top 5 guy and Bryant will be in the top 25.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m also not sure it’s a fleecing. Are two prospects ranked, say in the 40s equal to one in the top 10? Those two certainly wouldn’t be treated as equal to one in the top 5 and top 5 guys are traded from time to time.
I think only way you get Price is if you give up Baez or Bryant plus others and I wouldn’t do that.
dmick89Quote Reply
So sayeth Gordon
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’m just going by Parks’ comments earlier in the year, although I can’t remember if he said that before or after Almora got hurt again. It was definitely after Soler got hurt and was shut down. He said not too long ago that the Cubs could realistically have 4 top 25 guys, and while Almora won’t get ranked as the top guy in the system again this season, I think he’ll still be higher than Soler in B-Pro’s rankings at least. Callis has also been just as high on Almora than anybody I’ve seen (“I’ll be stunned if he doesn’t become at least an annual .275/15 homer hitter with Gold Glove ability in center field”), and with him at MLB.com I wouldn’t be shocked to see him higher than you might expect, maybe not top 25, but comfortably in the 30s at worst. I don’t think Alcantara will actually make the Top 50, but again, depending on who’s making the list, I think he could be closer than you might think, and the fact that he’s so close to the majors adds to his value.
I think including Castillo makes that deal a fleecing, especially with the improvements Castillo showed on defense and with plate patience as the year wore on. At worst you know you have a league average catcher under cost control, and if he breaks out you could have a very special talent.
Maybe I’m overrating the Cubs prospects, but there’s also the factor that this roster needs offense way more than it needs pitching right now, and dumping Almora, Castillo, and Alcantara for Price seems like the Garza Trade 2: Electric Boogaloo. Feels like a Hendry move, not a Thoyer move.
sitrickQuote Reply
The difference, though, is we’ve had a new CBA. The price of FA just went up and it’s hard to acquire David Price on the open market (because David Price is extended an never actually makes it to FA).
Kyle at Bleacher Nation says that acquiring David Price means you pay twice; once in prospects, once in FA. That’s definitely true, but if the alternative is never paying for David Price, then how do you ever get that impact talent? It’s not through outbidding the Dodgers, that’s for sure (if you even get the option to try, that is).
I’d go so far to say that if you offered Almora/Alcantara/Castillo for Price, the RAYS would say no.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Maybe this is how impact talent is going to start hitting the FA market again, then, because at a certain point the price is going to get so high that there won’t be buyers. Or MLB will turn into the NFL and there just won’t be trades.
sitrickQuote Reply
I still think it is too early to speculate on how the new CBA will affect free agency. Right now and in the near term, it prohibits impact talent to hit free agency. We may see changes to how both teams and players view the “team friendly” deals. We may see another new CBA soon enough. The Kyle Lohse issue I’m sure has made the players’ union quite upset.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
There’s also perhaps a second cause of the Cubs getting Almora into the top 25 and Alcantara into the top 50: the level of prospects in 2014 are lower than years earlier. That’s possible. There’s always going to be a year in which there isn’t as much talent in the top 100 as before.
I just think it’s more likely it means they’re overrating the Cubs farm system. i think this is probably fairly common when teams have a lot of prospects. They look at a guy like Almora and think top 25 when they instead should be rating from the top (1) down (100).
Almora wasn’t a top 25 before and if you reduce his BABIP to something more realistic he was basically just above average. Good season at his age, but he’s lacks power at the moment and there are apparently questions about him sticking in CF. I think of someone with his talent (age and level) he’s more of a 40-50 guy and I still think Alcantara is a 75-100 guy. If Almora is in the top 25 you may as well put Baez at the top and Bryant in the top 3 or 4.
If Almora is a top 25 guy a case could be made that not only does CJ Edwards belong in the top 100, but Kyle Hendricks does too. This would also mean Pierce Johnson is in it and maybe even Arodys Vizcaino. Along with Baez, Bryant, Soler and Alcantara.
Let’s say there’s a player out there that you think Baez for him would be a fairish trade. Say Baez and someone else (not a major player, but a decent one at the MLB level). You believe it’s a fair trade.
Would you rather make that trade (giving up Baez and decent MLB player) or Almora and Alcantara, along with the decent MLB player for the same guy?
Baez, decent MLB player for some other player (you think it’s a fair trade)
Almora, Alcantara and decent MLB player for the same other player
Which one would you prefer?
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I think that’s a hard question to answer in a vacuum, as it depends on the context of what else you have in the farm system. Baez, as a superstar-ceilinged talent, is by degrees more valuable to the Cubs than he’d be to, say, the Twins, the Red Sox, or the Cardinals, who have at least three or four guys in their system with that kind of potential and, in the case of the Cardinals and the Red Sox, have fairly complete major league rosters that already have veteran superstar talent. So that lends itself to saying Almora, Alcantara, and the decent MLB player would be preferable to give up.
However, the flipside of that is that the Cubs’ major league roster, especially the lineup, sucks, and sucks hard. No one guy is going to be a solution, and so you need that depth, both from the players that will turn out to be cost-controlled role players as well as the lottery tickets that turn into superstars.
I guess, gun to my head, I’d trade Almora and Alcantara before Baez, but I think personally, where the club is in terms of the rebuild, I mostly just don’t feel like the timing is right to be making big trades like this. They may be close to being a surprise contender, but I don’t think they’re close enough to dominance that Price (or any single player, short of Mike Trout) is going to be a game changer.
sitrickQuote Reply
That got longer than I intended…was thinking my way through it as I typed (dying laughing)
sitrickQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
I don’t think talent already in an organization really affects it that much. There’s a value to every prospect and in an average year, the 5th ranked prospect is worth about X dollars. What I’m trying to figure out is what a number 5 (or 1 or whatever) prospect is worth in other prospects. 1-5 are probably pretty close to being equal to one another. The further you get from there the less valuable (obviously).
Let’s say Baez ranks 10th. What is the 10th ranked prospect worth in terms of other prospects? That’s what I’m trying to get at. There’s an answer to that question. I don’t know what it is and there is some variance, but I think it’s fairly consistent.
My instinct says that teams would view a 10th ranked prospect as equal to two prospects ranked in the 30s or 40s. Maybe it’s higher and maybe it’s lower. I can only guess. Maybe the 10th ranked prospect is equal to a prospect ranked around 20th and one at 80-90. I don’t know.
We all have opinions as far as trades go. If the team trades Baez we’re going to expect some young impact MLB ready talent in return. Simple as that. If they traded both Almora and Alcantara, what do we expect in return? A similar return as to what we’d get for Baez? Would we want more for Baez only or more for the other two?
I’d probably want more in the Baez only trade. So, if I’m happy with a supposed Baez trade, I’d probably be even happier if it was Almora and Alcantara instead. If I’m the Cubs, I might be happier with that deal, but they know more than I do. As a fan with some knowledge, I’d want more in a Baez only trade than if the other two were combined.
What about you?
I think this work may have already been done several years ago on Beyond the Box Score now that I think about it. I’ll have to look around.
dmick89Quote Reply
Here: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/7/13/1567771/prospect-surplus-value
A prospect ranked in the top 10 is roughly equal to two in the 25-50 range. Or about 3 in the 76-100 range. Those are for position player prospects.
Baez would be equal to about 1 pitcher in the top 10 and one position player in the 75-100 range.
Thereabouts.
(we’d have to adjust for inflation since those numbers are from 2010 so they’ll be off quite a bit)
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I just don’t see this. Is Edwards a second piece in a trade package if the trade is with the White Sox and not the Rangers? Would the Pirates have even considered moving Taillon at the deadline if they didn’t have another wave of young talent behind him? Yes, I agree that there’s an objective value, but the subjective element of team need and team value of prospects comes into this too.
I do think you’re right in that teams would generally give up a package of lower ranked players than part with their top-tier, and that probably has a negative impact on the lower tiered players’ value. But If top tier prospects aren’t available in trades (which is becoming more norm than exception), doesn’t that paradoxically increase the value of the mid-tier players that can actually be acquired (similar to free agency, where middling and past-prime talents get the lion’s share of the money because there’s nobody better to spend it on)?
I don’t know. I’m not smart enough for this. My brain hurts.
sitrickQuote Reply
dmick89Quote Reply
A position player ranked in the top 2 or 3 is worth about 4 to 5 pitching prospects ranked in the bottom 5 of the top 100.
That’s the extremes of this and it’s probably not true, but what do I know?
Those are still 2010 values.
dmick89Quote Reply
I was told there would be no math.
Aisle424Quote Reply
With 5% inflation each year
Rank Inflation adjusted (position players)
1-10 57.66
11-25 41.70
26-50 33.73
51-75 25.76
76-100 21.77
Rank Inflation adjusted (pitchers)
1-10 25.76
11-25 23.76
26-50 21.77
51-75 19.78
76-100 17.78
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
We lied.
That should be our site motto.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
“We lied” would be very apropos.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
This is absolutely true, and I think that the market for baseball players is one of the best and simplest examples of a market with nonlinear asset valuation that I can think of. That’s not to say that using a standard per-win value doesn’t have its uses, but it’s tough to evaluate any trade in a vacuum due to the scarcity of available players and the wild variation in the value of a win from team to team.
If you ask me whether the Cubs or A’s won the Harden trade, I’d have to say the answer is “yes.” In terms of gross WAR, I guess the jury is out but it’s hard to see any outcome other than a landslide for Oakland. But the wins that Harden gave the Cubs (especially in ’08) were extremely valuable, and at the time of the trade, the Cubs’ options for acquiring those wins were extremely limited. I can’t fault the Cubs for making the deal, even if Donaldson would look very good in a Cubs uni right now.
Think of it this way: you wouldn’t pay a thousand bucks for a bottle of water right now when you could go down to the White Hen and grab one for $1.29, but if you were out in the desert dying of thirst it would suddenly seem like a pretty good deal.
Looking at it this way is one of the reasons why I’m hopeful that the Cubs will continue to show at least some restraint in the free agent market. The wins that they pick up in the short term may be valuable and may bring them into contention, but at the same time, spending now will limit their ability to do so in the future. If you accept the proposition that wins in the future will be more valuable because the team will be better positioned to contend, I’d think you would want to be left with ample payroll flexibility. That’s not a sure thing, but the volume of young talent now in the system makes it highly likely, IMO.
I’m all for picking up impact talent in this year’s class, by the way. I just hope any moves are done with an eye on a timeline and risk profile that doesn’t hamstring the team in the more distant future, as was the case with the guys who were brought in during the early Zell years.
uncle daveQuote Reply
(And sorry about the tl;dr-ness of the post above, I don’t get much of a chance to geek out on economics these days.)
uncle daveQuote Reply
Did you guys ever post the final reverse standings?
JonKneeVQuote Reply
I would think this would be fairly easy to check. You take the top 10 and bottom 10 farm systems each year for several years and compare the packages teams got in return for prospects traded. If I understand you guys, you’re saying that teams with a thin system will get more for a player than a team with a deep farm system. CJ Edwards would be more or less valuable in a trade based on the strength of the farm system. I don’t see why another team is going to value a player based on the strength of that system.
Take all the Cubs prospects away except Baez. Second best prospect is Logan Watkins. Baez doesn’t have more value in a trade.
He may have more value to the Cubs, but the Giants, A’s, Padres, Braves and Rangers aren’t going to give up more to acquire him because the next best prospect is Logan Watkins.
I’m not denying that a player is more of less valuable to that organization. That may or may not be true. I’d hate to think it is to a smart organization. I would not be happy to learn that the Cubs would trade Alcantara or Johnson for less because they have other better prospects. Johnson and Alcantara are worth what they are to other teams and should be worth no less.
I’m not talking about the willingness of an organization to make a trade. That’s something none of us can figure out no matter how much research we put into it. I’m assuming a trade is on the table and the options are Baez OR Alcantara and Almora. Same players in return. Neither package is more or less valuable based on the strength of the system. They may have more internal value, but that’s it.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ uncle dave:
This.
uncle dave wrote:
I think it’s also important to keep in mind that everything Selig and the owners have sought out as part of tweaking the CBA over the past decade or so has been designed to limit spending, and so spending money has been de-incentivized at every turn. I don’t think what we’ve come to understand as a “big market” strategy to talent acquisition applies in the current environment because there’s almost zero avenues left where teams can spend efficiently and add wins. I know dmick has railed against the Cubs acting like a small market team, but it seems to me that, under the current CBA, every team has to act like the Rays to achieve sustained success. Even the Dodgers — who claim to be using the window acquiring Gonzalez/Crawford/Ramirez/Puig/etc gave them as a placeholder until they can develop a legit farm system and build a homegrown core — don’t seem to view $200 million payrolls as a path to regular contention. Money just can’t cover up mistakes like it used to, and when it can, it screws you for the long term.
sitrickQuote Reply
Different teams use different valuation systems so that makes analyzing trades fairly difficult.
Harden trade? That brings up another thing about analyzing trades. Playoffs. Knowing what we know now, it was a bad trade. At the time? I think it was a good one. The Cubs were headed to the playoffs with or without Harden, but Harden improved their chances of winning in the playoffs. It didn’t end up mattering and the Cubs were gone in 3 and never put it together in 2009.
So, yeah, “yes” is a good answer to the question about who won the trade. They both did. Contending teams give up a piece of the future for the present.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ sitrick:
The new TV contracts teams get will send spending to record highs. I agree with what you’re saying for the most part, but long-term success isn’t just about prospects. It’s about spending big dollars. There’s no other way for sustained winning unless we think the Cubs can do what they’ve done to their farm system while picking, hopefully, no higher than 25th in the draft. That or you hope for being luckier than you were when you got to pick higher and more frequently.
I think JKV made several good points in comment 42 that have been overlooked so far. The current CBA expires in 3 seasons. It’s hard for me to imagine the MLBPA not addressing the Kyle Lohse situation.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think we’ll see the Cubs spend some money on someone this offseason. Choo or Ellsbury at the very least. If the Cubs call Baez up next season at some point, which is possible and maybe even likely, they aren’t going to want him to have to carry the damned team once he gets to Chicago. They aren’t going to want the fans to be looking at a shitty offense and put all their hope, future and success on the shoulders of Baez. Not to mention, it would be kind of nice to have more than just Rizzo that Baez can look to as examples of how to hit MLB pitching.
I think that’s why we heard the rumor about McCann even if it doesn’t make sense. I don’t think the Cubs are going to bring Baez up and have only Rizzo who can hit on the team.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
My argument is pretty much that in the current environment, there’s no way to accomlish sustained winning without growing your own superstar talents. Because you’re not going to do well losing your first round pick to draft compensations every year either. That’s a recipe for becoming the Angels.
sitrickQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
It’s definitely true that players are worth what they are to other teams, and I don’t think that teams are making their decisions based on the relative strength of their trading partner. Bias might creep into the decision based on that (e.g., a team could overvalue players based on the overall reputation of that team’s farm system, or they could undervalue players because they perceive others in that system to be better), but each team definitely makes its decisions based on its own needs and its own understanding of the market.
The point I was trying to make is that even if all teams were able to perfectly value players (which they aren’t, of course), each team would value any given player differently. A contending team would put way more value on a player who can contribute now than would a team that is a couple of years away. That value would be further enhanced if the contending team had a positional need that wasn’t readily available on the market.
What that means for the Cubs when they’re looking to make a move is that there are some circumstances where you’d accept less in terms of absolute, context-neutral value for your players than others. If the Cubs system looked today like it did three years ago (namely, void of 3B prospects), you might not be willing to part with a guy like Mike Olt unless you were getting something substantial that addressed a major need in return. Now, though, he looks awfully expendable and has way less value to the Cubs.
Does this mean that they should accept less than the market will bear in return for him? Of course not. However, since any return on a trade would have to be evaluated based on your circumstances at the time, it very well could be the case that you’d take a lower aggregate return in terms of WAR if you were able to address a specific need, or deal from a specific strength. If you’re the 2014 Cubs and you’re given the choice between a 3 WAR catcher and a 2.5 WAR second baseman, you might consider the second baseman because the catcher isn’t really an upgrade over what you already have. The calculus gets more difficult with prospects because you have to factor in risk and upside, but you get the point.
I always cringe when folks talk about the Lou Brock trade, partially because Lou Brock’s perceived value is much higher than his actual value, but mostly because any discussion tends to ignore that Brock was blocked by a better player (Billy Williams) and that his value to the Cubs was diminished as a result. (Both were substantially below-average left fielders and really couldn’t play anywhere else on the field.) It’s an open question as to whether or not the Cubs could have gotten more from a different team (and recall that Broglio was shortly removed from a very productive couple of years with the Cards at the time of the deal), but there’s no question to me that the Cubs were right to at least put him on the block.
To actually answer the question that you posed above, I’d give up Alcantara and Almora before I’d give up Baez. Baez is closer to the bigs (reducing risk) and has the most upside of anyone on the table, which makes him a more valuable and more scarce talent. People who know more about baseball than I do might disagree, though.
uncle daveQuote Reply
What Dave said. Agree completely on all accounts.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
I think you can if you have a large enough payroll. The Cubs can’t have a payroll that large and it’s not what I’m advocating. I don’t want the Cubs to have a spending spree this offseason or any offseason. I don’t want the payroll to get too large too far into the future. That happened to the Cubs after the spending spree and can happen in other ways too, though it’s not as likely.
I don’t want the Cubs to spend their way to a championship in 2014. I want them to spend reasonably well and have the foresight to acquire talent so that when you are hopefully pushing guys to the MLB level there’s a strong base of talent around them. I want the Cubs to acquire a couple good free agents this offseason and if it only gets them 82 wins, so be it. That’s fine. It’s more talent than they had before and they still have that talent when Baez, Bryant and hopefully others are reaching the big leagues.
I want them to spend while acquiring young talent via trade and in Latin America and in the draft. I don’t want them to give up their top pick every year, but I also don’t want them picking 4th every season. I want them to have a small amount to spend in international free agency so they can blow past it and pay the penalties because at that point it does not matter.
If what I expect to happen this offseason happens, I’ll be quite happy. They probably won’t contend next year, but they’ll be a hell of a lot more entertaining and if a few things go right, they could contend. If they do what I know GW is expecting, the Cubs will just be that much closer to being as interesting to me as the Raiders, which is to say I would only pay slightly more attention than doing almost everything to avoid them.
dmick89Quote Reply
Agreed. I understand what you two are saying and I have never really disagreed. Not so much that it’s worth discussing anyway. It seems we were basically talking two different things because I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you guys said.
I was only trying to get to sitrick’s initial comment about a Price trade proposed earlier being a fleecing. I believe it was Alcantar and Almora. I agreed it’s a trade I’d not make and the best way to make the point, or show that I agree is that the two of the are roughly worth Javier Baez. I would not make that trade either and I do think Baez is more valuable. I also think it would take no less than Baez or Bryant plus others to get Price. In other words, I wouldn’t make the trade talked about above, but I think it would take nearly as much to acquire him. You’d just have to replace Almora and Alcantara with Baez or Bryant. And there’s no way I’m making that trade.
I’m really not sure how we got on this detour, but I’ll go ahead and apologize as it was likely my fault.
dmick89Quote Reply
I don’t really think anyone in baseball would disagree either. If there is someone, the Cubs should deal exclusively with that team for the next 3 years because there’s some good trades to be made.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ sitrick:
Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see what happens to the market over the next few years. If the TV bubble bursts, there’ll be a few teams that will have more money than they know what to do with (to the point where you might see that addressed in future iterations of the CBA). This is something that is definitely off the radar of most fans, but correctly judging the market in the context of recent and future changes is going to be massively important. Should be interesting to watch.
dmick89 wrote:
It’s about spending big dollars wisely, and not just in the context of an idealized and perfectly efficient market. Good GMs understand the value of players and act accordingly. Great ones understand inefficiencies and not only ruthlessly exploit them, but also understand how to protect themselves from their own shortcomings in understanding the market and the value of their players. We all know that Billy Beane does an exceptional job of finding value on the market, but something that Oakland does better than any team in the league is understand the concept of sunk costs. They brought in Chris Young at $10MM per, which is close to 20% of their payroll. Most teams would play him whether he produces or not, simply because they’re paying him. Oakland does not. Most teams would have put Brett Anderson back in the rotation once he got healthy, as he’s an established big-league starting pitcher. Oakland started Sonny Gray in game 2 of the LDS.
The concept of your own limitations as an organization is one more thing to consider when you hit the free agent market. Will you have the balls to sit a big-ticket free agent if he doesn’t hit? Will you have to make promises to the guy or his agent regarding playing time if you sign him? Will this have a negative effect on your ability to develop young players, or play young players if they prove to be superior alternatives? I debate whether or not the Cubs would even have the freedom to take any of those actions in the glare of the Chicago media market and in the face of irrational fan demands.
You have to think about this stuff when you think about building a team. I do actually think that the Cubs should go after impact talent this year, but only if it makes sense in the context of their greater situation. (In other words: Choo yes, McCann no, even if Choo goes elsewhere.)
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Low blow, man.
dmick89 wrote:
No need to apologize, I’ve enjoyed the discussion, and we’re really not arguing or anything. (Besides, what the hell else are we going to talk about now that Breaking Bad is over?) I gotta check out and do some work, but it was fun.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I’d much prefer Choo obviously and don’t currently see any need to go after McCann. If there’s a deal to be made that includes Castillo and it’s beneficial to the Cubs now and hopefully in the future, by all means make it and then go after McCann. That’s about the only way I see McCann behind the plate for the Cubs next year. I don’t think there’s any way this organization sees Castillo as a backup.
So Choo yes and McCann depending on whether there’s something to made regarding Castillo. I don’t think it’s urgent to do it, but I wouldn’t say no just because. It would have to be a fairly good trade though.
It should be known at this point without saying that when I say I want the Cubs to spend, it’s to spend reasonably without killing themselves later on. I know I’ve said this a few times and I would think it is well established at this point. If I start saying the Cubs should go after all the free agents, maybe someone should ask if my goals for spending have changed, but until then, please understand that I mean for them to spend in a reasonable manner. It’s not something I want to express every time I say it.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I think I’m guilty of this because of how much you’ve talked about wanting the Cubs to act like a large market team and press their financial advantage, as well as how much you appreciate the Yankees and the success they’ve had. (Not that I don’t, I just think the landscape has changed and that approach doesn’t really work anymore).
What I’m taking from this is that we could’ve avoided a few hours of debate if I had walked back “fleecing” down to “Yeah, I wouldn’t make that trade.”
sitrickQuote Reply
Also, McCann is a douchenozzle and I really don’t want to have to root for him ever.
sitrickQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
No, sure, and I don’t want to sound like I’m being accusatory or overly argumentative (though I guess I can’t help the latter, apparently). I think that there are differences of opinion around here on what a responsible level/way of spending is, but that’s something that reasonable people can disagree on.
uncle daveQuote Reply
That was a fun and educational exchange I recently enjoyed.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
This, also.
sitrickQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
I don’t think either of you are guilty of anything. I was just trying to make it clear, perhaps in a way that sounded accusatory though it wasn’t my intent, that I basically agree as far as spending reasonably. I’ve said it several times and I guess I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t say it anymore. At some point it just becomes a pain to say things in a repetitive way.
I have a great amount of respect for what the Yankees have done. They’ve won a billion times and always try to win. They’ve lost sight of what allowed them to do so for so long, but I have little doubt they’ll get back up top. It may take a few years, but they’ll get there and I don’t think anyone should doubt that.
I also have great respect for what the Cardinals have done. I probably respect them more than any Cubs fan here. I rooted for them in the playoffs twice and will root for them this year if they get to WS. They’ve done it differently than the Yankees and it’s been impressive.
I want the Cubs to be more like the Cardinals, but I want them to spend more money because they have it.
I also have a ton of respect for what the A’s and Rays have done. Even the Twins to some degree though they’re not nearly as good as they once were. There are different ways to win and I don’t think the current CBA is going to change that. Money is going to be a determining factor just as it always has been. It’s quite possible with the TV contracts that it’s an even bigger influence on winning than we’ve yet to see. That would be my bet.
There’s a balance here and I want the Cubs to find it. I see no reason to wait until Baez, Bryant and so on and so forth are established before spending money. I believe if there is an intelligent trade that involves Cubs prospects, any of them, that you make it. No one is untouchable. It sounds so easy and it’s not
uncle dave wrote:
You weren’t and I had fun in the argument even if I mostly agreed with you guys.
Sitrick, I could have avoided this whole thing by being more clear, but I’ve enjoyed it anyway. It’s the most I’ve talked about the Cubs in a very long time.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’ll add one other thing. If the Cubs went out and spent $500 million this offseason, I’m sure as hell as going to enjoy the next 3 to 5 years. I won’t complain about the money in 2013-2014 just as I didn’t in 2006-2007.
Not that I encourage them to do that, but if they did, I’ll sit back and have fun for the next few years. I’ve got no problem with that. It’s what comes after that will suck.
dmick89Quote Reply
So am I the only person who would deal Baez + bottom-of-top-10 prospect for Price here? That’s pretty interesting to me. I’d do that trade and not really look back, even given Price’s perceived injury problems (and the corresponding drop in velo). I guess I must be crazy overvaluing Price (who put up WARPs of 3.2, 3.3, 3.3, and 2.6 the past 4 years (and the 2.6 mark was more-or-less on pace for 3.1 WARP had he made 32 starts instead of 27).
Let’s do a Price Breakdown.
The first thing to notice is that his velo went down this year (96.55 to 94.42). That’s a big drop; it’s also consistently down, so you can’t say that it really was an injury thing that was fixed after his DL stint (though it’s very, very possible that he’s been dealing with minor issues all season (and the suggested treatment of triceps strains are…rest). Price could turn into Tommy Hanson, but I think there’s a very good shot that Price recoups some lost velocity in the offseason. That being said, Price has been nicked up about once or twice a year.
In spite of his injury this year, he still logged 186.7 innings, and this comes off of 211, 224.3, and 208.7 inning campaigns. Price gives you 200 innings of Cy-quality pitching. In the past 4 years, he’s 12th in IP with 830.2 and 14th in FIP with 3.21. Restrict the IP to around 650 IP (160 ish a year), and he’s 10th.
I think Price is a legitimate ace who would come with (at a minimum) 2 years of cost control. I think the Cubs would only trade for Price if he was amenable to an extension, buying at 2 years of arb and 3 years of FA. I could see that looking like 14/17/23/23/23 if he didn’t extend (two years of arb, 23 AAV FA contract), which is coincidentally 5/100. Give the Cubs the customary 10% off, and maybe another 5% for injury concerns, and I can see a 17/17/17/17/17 deal being a reasonable extension for a player of Price’s caliber. If Price would sign that, and if the Cubs do the due diligence injury-wise and believe he’s relatively safe (of course, that could make the deal go up in smoke), I’d part with Baez for that and not really think twice. Price instantly makes the Cubs a feared rotation (Price/Samardzija/Wood/Jackson/Arrieta looks a lot better than Samardzija/Wood/Jackson/Arrieta/Rusin, doesn’t it), and the cost is a player that (let’s not forget) could flounder at AAA for 3 years. Sure, Baez could end up being a franchise player at SS who wins 2 MVPs and makes me look silly. On the other hand, Price ALREADY IS that franchise pitcher, who has won a Cy and by most standards has been one of the best dozen or so pitchers in the past 4 years who is entering his age-28 season (which still a prime year).
Please tell me why I’m wrong.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
The surplus trade value for Baez is considerably higher due to lower salary and more years of control. I’ll show in more detail pretty soon.
dmick89Quote Reply
David Price has two years of club control and both he’s going to be paid a good amount of money. He made just over $10 million in 2013 so he’ll probably get about $12-13 million next year and $15-17 million in 2014. So somewhere around $25 million to $30 million is what Price will be paid over the next two seasons.
Steamer has him at 3.9 WAR for 2014. Let’s be generous and say 4.5. We’ll even keep it at 4.5 the following year so 9 more WAR and he’ll be paid $25-30 million.
The win value is about $6 million in 2014 (estimated). Reasonable people could argue it’s about $5.5 million and $7.0 million. We’ll split the difference and say $6.25 million. He’s worth $28.125 million next year. We’ll jump the win value up to $6.75 million in 2014 and that makes him worth $30.375 million. So he’s worth $58.5 million and will be paid about $27.5 million. His surplus trade value is about $31 million.
The surplus trade value of a prospect ranked 1 through 10, with inflation is $57.66 million (link earlier in the thread to beyond the box score and I added in inflation). Prospect ranked 11-25 are worth $41.7 million so we could say Baez is worth more than that.
Baez surplus trade value = $41.7 million plus (probably closer to $45 million or so)
Price surplus trade value = $31 million
Price only has two years left and he’s paid well over each year. We were generous here with the estimated WAR. If we got with 3.9 that Steamer has and something like 3.7 for 2014, that’s 7.6 WAR over 2 years. That gives him a surplus trade value of about $18 million. That makes him worth a position player prospect ranked 75-100 or a pitcher ranked 51-75.
I think, if the Rays trade him, they’ll get more than that, but he’s not worth it.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Should be noted that the surplus trade value doesn’t mean some team won’t match such a trade. it just means that is what his value is based on his projected WAR and his expected salary.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
If you move a package headlined by Baez, given the state of this roster right now, I’m not sure how that’s a different deal than the Garza trade.
sitrickQuote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/news-and-rumors/cubs-sign-ryan-sweeney-to-2-year-deal.html
dmick89Quote Reply