Evaluating trades becomes a topic of interest as each trade is made. Before the trade we're analyzing the rumors of what teams would be giving up and getting in return. Some people are content to make baseless claims about the quality of the trade when it happens, during the contracts and after it happens. Some are content to look at a few numbers like batting average, RBI and pitcher wins and leave reach a conclusion. Others look at advanced metrics, WAR in particular, to evaluate a trade when it happes, during the contracts and after. Projections are central to evaluating a trade when it happens.
I used to believe that using projections at the time of the deal was not only the best way to evaluate a trade, but the only responsible way to do so. I argued we had certain information, or rather the GMs had certain information, and that it was at the time the trade happened; not after. I was basically saying that we can't fault a GM for a bad trade if it seemed like a decent deal at the time despite him trading away a star. I believed this for quite awhile.
I've since realized the assumption that it's the only way to evaluate a trade is based entirely on the parties involved having the same information as the public had. But they have a lot more information at their disposal and all the teams, an organization that leans heavily on sabermetrics or not, use whatever information they have when considering a trade.
Every year fans want their favorite teams to fire their GM and hire some hot shot that might available. The reason for this is relatively simple: not all GMs are created equal. They can't possibly be viewing the players involved in a trade in the very same manner. They see things differently. They might project one player better than another team does. It's because of this that evaluating a trade at the time it's made is only one way to evaluate a trade.
Suppose two teams swap equally paid players who made an equal amount of money. Their projections at the time of the trade are identical. These trades are rare, but this is just an example. At the time of the trade, what went one way was equal to went the other way. During that season one player was worth 2 WAR while another was worth 3 WAR. It's no longer equal. It's fairly obvious one team got the better end of this trade. Was it a bad trade?
Most of the time it's not as simple as this to evaluate. You usually have players making different amounts of money being traded for one another. What if Team A gets 9 WAR in a trade over, say, 3 years while Team B also gets 9 WAR. We might immediately think this trade was a wash, but players are paid real money and that money paid to them is money not paid to other players. Team A has paid this guy $40 million while Team B paid only $12 million. Obviously Team B is the winner of this trade, but does the winner and loser really matter? Is it that important to us that we have to think of trades in terms of winners and losers?
What is it that we are ultimately trying to find? I can't speak for everyone, but I'm most interested in the rationale for the trade and after the contracts are up I'm curious how each team did in terms of projecting the players they acquired. Who won the trade is irrelevant to me because the simple fact is that even a good GM is going to lose trades from time to time. A bad GM will win them too.
If we have a large enough sample of trades we could evaluate how well one GM is at projecting his own talent vs. talent he acquires from another organization. How large does the sample have to be? I don't have the foggiest idea. I know it's not 1 trade or even 3 or 5 trades. It's not 1 years, 2 or 3 years. It's probably not even 4 or 5 years either, but I don't really know. If I was going to research this I might set the cutoff at 6 years. At that point maybe we can spot which GMs are better than others at trading. However, it's not only the GM that's involved in trade discussions.
Getting back to when to evaluate trades, there are two different times at which this can be done. Both should be done because each method gives us information that is valuable to us. We'd probably want to put more weight on the outcomes of the trades, but we can't reach too many conclusions about any individual trade other than this: one team got the better end of the deal. One trade isn't necessarily reflective of the skills of the people involved in the trade discussions. Over many trades it may very well be, but most GMs don't stick around long enough to have that kind of track record.
Comments
MB,
I really enjoy your in depth trade value coverage. You do a great job of breaking down these things and making them understandable. Thanks for that.
Off the top of your head or without going to too much work, how would you compare Matt Garza’s trade value now to the trade value that Ted Lilly had when he was traded? It seems that Lilly was paid 3M more at the the time, but it seems like he was also a better pitcher, or at least comparible to Garza talent wise.
I’ve read your breakdown on Garza’s trade value, I’m just trying to find another name to compare him to.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
If you scroll to the Update part of this post you can read my thoughts on the Lilly trade (it includes his trade value though not a rundown of it, I’m still looking for that): http://dmick89.com/cubs/joomla/index.php/component/content/article/24-chicago-cubs/articles/686-lilly-and-theriot-traded-to-los-angeles-dodgers-of-los-angeles
mb21Quote Reply
You can find the math for Ted Lilly’s trade value here: http://dmick89.com/cubs/joomla/index.php/component/content/article/24-chicago-cubs/articles/663-2010-cubs-trade-value
mb21Quote Reply
Lilly and Theriot vs Garza is an interesting question, Edwin. Lilly was paid more, but was a better pitcher at the time and Theriot wasn’t very good, but could stand at SS and was still relatively cheap. If the Cubs kick in the rest of what Garza is owed this year then he has more value, but otherwise I’d say the Lilly/Theriot trade had more value. Offering arbitration and securing draft picks was a lot easier then so you could pencil in $5 million in addition for the draft picks. It’s not so easy now and I’m not sure anybody is going to take that risk with Garza after next season. A lot depends on how he does between now and the end of next year, but if he was a free agent today it would be risky to offer him arbitration. He might not get more on the free agent market than the $12 million guaranteed offer. Garza is an overrated pitcher who consistently had an ERA below his FIP due to the great Rays defense. He then had a very good 2011 and has reverted to what he did before. The difference between this year and the years in Tampa Bay is that his ERA has jumped to match his FIP. The FIP is right in line with everything else he’s done.
mb21Quote Reply
I can’t help but wonder if that year of arbitration is affecting what value people think Garza has in a trade. Let’s get rid of that year of arbitration and instead just sign him to a contract through next year. We’ll pay him $12 million because that’s about what he’ll get. Now he’s a guy who has $16 million remaining on his contract. How much value do people think he has now? That’s what the Cubs are trading. Matt Garza and $16 million except they can’t pay next year’s salary. So at best they’re selling Matt Garza, $4 million while the other team takes on $12 million.
mb21Quote Reply
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57470878-83/yahoo-breach-swiped-passwords-by-the-numbers/
Looks like some OV readers were included in the hacking of Yahoo passwords, though probably not Mish.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Does it really matter at the time who wins the trade? If I’m a team and I make a trade at the deadline my whole intent is to make the playoffs. If that occurs as a result of the trade, and I make a deep run in the playoffs or even make the World Series, and it’s determined I lost the trade as far as value is concerned. It’s still a huge WIN as far as I’m concerned as my playoff and Series receipts will agree. I would lose every trade value I made if I could guarantee making the playoffs and a have a deep run in them if it was a direct result of the trade.
pinetarQuote Reply
@ mb21:
Kasper was saying yesterday that the Cubs are prepared to eat salary to guarantee good trade returns. I wonder, given that they can’t pay Garza’s 2013 salary in a trade, if they wouldn’t send some cash along in the deal to offset the arb salary? They could also ink him to an extension buying out that year and then deal him.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ pinetar:
I think the point about trade value MB is making is every time you make a “losing” deal, you’re lessening the chances that you’ll be in a position to swing a deal that gets you a playoff run, the next time around. See: Milwaukee Brewers.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
Milwaukee’s problem is they didn’t keep Fielder and spent to much money on bad Free agents. I’d call it a case of StupidGMitis.
pinetarQuote Reply
@ pinetar:
They also shipped the cream of their system off for Linebrink and Sabathia, and while the trade for Grienke was a break even trade, they still shipped a shitton of cost-controlled years off for a guy they will probably now have to deal.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ pinetar:
Yes, that’s important to consider. Reaching the postseason increases revenue, which is a huge win for an organization, but how do we determine whether or not one player helped a team reach the postseason? Is every team that trades for someone who doesn’t reach the postseason losing the trade?
mb21Quote Reply
update is saved & ready
dylanjQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
Yeah, that’s also important. Does that player helping you reach the postseason once offset being bad later on? I don’t know the answers to these questions and I tend to agree that it doesn’t matter who wins or loses a trade. Ultimately what you want to know is whether there’s a discrepancy in talent in evaluators (scouts, GMs) when it comes to trading players. That’s what I care about and that’s not something I can or probably will ever be able to answer.
A win for one team may be a loss for another team. The Brewers winning the division for the first time in 30 years may have been a big enough win for them that the later years don’t matter. The same would not be true for the Yankees, which is why I suspect they tend to stay away from midseason trades.
I’d say my overall point is that there are two ways to evaluate an individual trade and both ways tell us information that is mostly irrelevant to what we really want to know. or at least what I really want to know anyway.
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
Hard to pinpoint any one person being the reason for a team making the playoffs. When that one person is in the lineup everyday for 2+ months or the starting rotation it’s hard to not say they didn’t have an impact. They’d have to lay an egg.
pinetarQuote Reply
@ pinetar:
But that stupid GMitis extends back to 2008 when they began giving up their farm system for short-term results. It worked for them for 2 years, but that’s about it. Maybe that’s good enough for the owner. He may be richer than ever because of those deals and based on their payroll that may very well be true. If that’s the case then it’s a huge win for the organization, playoffs or not, but the same wouldn’t be true for a team like the Red Sox or Yankees. Periodic wins for those franchises is unacceptable to the fan base.
mb21Quote Reply
@ pinetar:
True, but it’s entirely possible you trade for a guy who does lay an egg and you still make the playoffs. Hard to say if that happens that it was worth giving up what you did even though you reached your goal.
Really, there’s just too much to consider when you’re evaluating a trade. I’ll continue to do it beforehand, but I’ll probably not do it much after the fact even though it’s more than acceptable. It’s just that I can’t possibly know what benefits the teams received in those deals. What I’d be interested in is whether or not there are talent evaluators who are better at projecting future talent than others. There surely is and trade evaluations over many years may be one way to spot this. The draft, now that it’s more fair, will soon be another.
mb21Quote Reply
Use the Randy Johnson trade to Houston. Didn’t they give up a boatload to get him and then he proceeded to go like 10-1 the rest of that year. Then he signs with Ariz. in the off season.
pinetarQuote Reply
I kind of like the reaction so far to the Colvin-Stewart trade where one guy looks like he’s lighting the world on fire while the other’s pure crap, but neither team is going to make the playoffs.
Also, Underwood officially signed per multiple sources including ESPN.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
If the Cubs don’t trade Joe Carter and Mel Hall for Rick Sutcliffe, the Cubs don’t make the playoffs in 1984 and likely don’t become the media darlings the became for the rest of Harry’s years. Harry was great and he gets and deserves a ton of credit for building the brand of Wrigley as a destination, but what originally got people out there in droves and got people putting hundreds of lawnchairs on the rooftops (giving birth to a multi-million dollar industry) was the Cubs winning that division.
I don’t think the Cubs get lights without that playoff appearance and whether they would have made a run in 1989 anyway is debatable, because, again, a key member of that team was Sutcliffe. I think Wrigleyville and the Cubs team is a very different economic situation without that 1984 playoff appearance and that simply does not happen without trading Hall and Carter for Sutcliffe (I know others were involved in the deal, but I don’t care enough to look them up). So even if Hall and Carter had both made the Hall of Fame, I ‘d still consider that deal a win for the Cubs organization.
Aisle424Quote Reply
perfect..
http://onion.com/PTbwef
gaius mariusQuote Reply
dj’s minor league shit: http://obstructedview.net/news-and-rumors/the-children-are-the-future-cubs-minor-league-update-sponsored-by-chevy-volt.html
I added my thoughts from the I-Cubs game to the post.
mb21Quote Reply
I have nothing to say except I’m viewing this on an iPhone. Ihave to say I don’t like it. I need to be able to type.
Josh22Quote Reply
oh bill james……….http://deadspin.com/5925694/someone-actually-thinks-the-freeh-report-exonerated-joe-paterno-and-its-bill-james?tag=penn-state-scandal
dylanjQuote Reply