Photo

MASN: More from Saturday’s Winter Warm-Up


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#101 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,549 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 03:09 PM

At some price of course you would sell him. But there is a large potential difference between Adley as the overall #1 pick and Wilson the #15 pick. Even your very own in depth analysis says those two spots are apples and oranges.

 

I think everyone recognizes that there's a difference, since we're discussing a $12M price tag for Wilson, and presumably you would want a lot more than that to sell Adley.  Still, the debate was over whether a prospect might be worth more on the open market than what it took to sign him, and you seem to be saying yes, so we agree.



#102 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 20 December 2019 - 03:43 PM

Fangraphs values the #15 pick at about $15M
@BSLRobShields

#103 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,459 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 20 December 2019 - 03:45 PM

My whole point, throughout this thread, is that we are assuming that Wilson, was held in high enough regard, by the Orioles,  to eat the 12 million contract of Cozart.

 

And the reason people are fighting you is that your point is focusing on one tree and ignoring the forest. You're saying it may not be worth it in THIS case while others are emphasizing that the statements from the team suggest that they may not be willing as an organization to make that kind of move at all.

 

It is like going into an argument where people are complaining about the organization's lack of international spending, picking out a couple notable busts from around baseball, and saying, "Why should we have wasted our money?"


@DJ_McCann

#104 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 20 December 2019 - 04:25 PM

At some price of course you would sell him. But there is a large potential difference between Adley as the overall #1 pick and Wilson the #15 pick. Even your very own in depth analysis says those two spots are apples and oranges.

I'm in the camp that believes you can speed up the rebuild process, by taking on salary dumps to acquire prospects. But I also think you've made a fair point. Is a #15 pick worth $12M to get him with 6 years of control. I also think Mike B made a good point. Is it possible that the O's didn't value him $12M worth.

Looking at his Baseball America scouting report, he rates as average across every offensive and defensive category. Except speed, he's not quite avg on the bases. He has some pop and projects to be a 20 HR/year hitter. He is also considered a high IQ player.

I couldn't find his Baseball Prospectus scouting report. A Phillies' scouting report mentioned that a couple of (unnamed) outlets grading his arm as above avg to plus. He's a collegiate SS, but doesn't necessarily project as a SS in MLB, because his range isn't great, but his IQ makes up for it, because he's very good at positioning himself. He may be better suited for 2B. If left at SS, he projects to be a Tim Beckham. At 2B, he projects to be a Jonathan Schoop. That's interesting, since we had a chance to see both players with the O's.

 

I think this info helps put the question in context. Is it a good/bad move for the O's to pay $12M to acquire Tim Beckham or Jonathan Schoop?     


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#105 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,549 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 04:39 PM

I think this info helps put the question in context. Is it a good/bad move for the O's to pay $12M to acquire Tim Beckham or Jonathan Schoop?     

 

Are you asking if it would have been worth $12M to acquire either one of them at age 21?  Because the answer is obviously yes, even for Beckhim.



#106 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,145 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 20 December 2019 - 04:43 PM

Here's what is really sad about this concept.

 

Sports salaries have gotten way way beyond insane when we are talking about prospects being valued at double digit millions of dollars.



#107 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,549 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 04:45 PM

Here's what is really sad about this concept.

 

Sports salaries have gotten way way beyond insane when we are talking about prospects being valued at double digit millions of dollars.

 

Don't be sad - the prospect didn't get any of that $12M.  It all went to the billionaire owner, so everything is OK.


  • mweb08, DJ MC and dude like this

#108 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 20 December 2019 - 04:48 PM

Here's what is really sad about this concept.

Sports salaries have gotten way way beyond insane when we are talking about prospects being valued at double digit millions of dollars.


They aren’t really insane...it’s what the market bears.
@BSLRobShields

#109 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 20 December 2019 - 04:55 PM

Are you asking if it would have been worth $12M to acquire either one of them at age 21?  Because the answer is obviously yes, even for Beckhim.

Yep, you got the question right. I think Schoop is an absolute yes. I'm not as certain that I'd pay that much to get Beckham. 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#110 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 20 December 2019 - 04:59 PM

They aren’t really insane...it’s what the market bears.

This is my opinion, too.


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#111 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,549 posts

Posted 20 December 2019 - 05:01 PM

weird-O, on 20 Dec 2019 - 17:00, said:
Yep, you got the question right. I think Schoop is an absolute yes. I'm not as certain that I'd pay that much to get Beckham.


Beckham has put up 5.5 WAR so far, and he's only been paid $7.5M in total, so there's a lot of surplus value there. I think he's a clear yes even if you're including a time machine in your hypothetical (although with a time machine, you'd trade or release him after 2017 and get 4.4 WAR for $2.4M, which is an even better bargain). 

 

Without a time machine, teams would be falling over themselves to pay $12M for the #1 overall pick.  He'd go for way more than that.


  • weird-O likes this

#112 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 21 December 2019 - 01:53 PM

MLB history has shown that the open market value of prospects (draftees, international, or otherwise) is far higher than the actual cost teams can acquire them for.

 

We agree in general here, but I wanted to make one comment about what you keep saying.

 

What your saying is true, but it's only because it's framed against an environment that doesn't allow rampant spending on youth like this.  IF EVERYONE was released and you had to sign guys (everyone) individually, there's not enough money for everyone to get the numbers you are throwing out in your anecdotal cases.

 

Where we utterly agree is that 'money' has value and <<shocker>> now it's apparently a thing.


  • Mackus likes this

#113 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 21 December 2019 - 02:14 PM

Since everyone wants to discuss this and not the actual Winter Warm-up joke here....

 

I'm pulling several pieces of comments together here so I'm not going back and grabbing everyone's quotes.

 

We literally were doing a trade with the Angels (Bundy).

 

If you add the Cozart thing to the Bundy trade, it's the exact same thing I was describing in the Rockies situation.

 

You include a directly useful guy (like Bundy or Nunez) into a trade where you are taking back salary (Cozart or Davis) and targeting prospect depth to make a deal.

 

Jeremy commented at the front of the Bundy deal about the Angels depth in OF and MI prospects.  The Angels have Trout signed for the next 12 years.  They have Upton for another 3/72.  They have a top prospect in baseball in Jo Adell.  That's your 3 OFers.   Their #2 and #3 guys, AA Brandon Marsh and LowA Jordyn Adams, are OFers too...their 4-5-6 (and 7 if you include Wilson) are all middle-infielders (per mlb.com).

 

In other words, you use your depth to go get whatever you need to get done, done.

 

Go read Eppler's comments on the Orioles trade.  He certainly was looking at giving up some his higher rated depth (Jeremy's position)....but the Orioles chose to transition to more quantity and they 'pivoted'.  It seemed like he was sort of laughing in his comments.

 

Bundy for Cozart (salary dump), Jordyn Adams, Jeremiah Jackson and Kyle Bradish

...is nearly exactly the same as...

Nunez for Davis (salary dump), Colton Welker, Grant Lavigne and Hampson

 

...except the 2nd one favors the Rockies a little more...so in theory should get more in the Rockies deal



#114 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,459 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 21 December 2019 - 09:16 PM

We agree in general here, but I wanted to make one comment about what you keep saying.

 

What your saying is true, but it's only because it's framed against an environment that doesn't allow rampant spending on youth like this.  IF EVERYONE was released and you had to sign guys (everyone) individually, there's not enough money for everyone to get the numbers you are throwing out in your anecdotal cases.

 

Where we utterly agree is that 'money' has value and <<shocker>> now it's apparently a thing.

 

Well, this assumes that the mass of players are all at equal levels of talent. In reality, the best prospects would get into bidding wars and still get significantly more than they would under the current restricted market.


@DJ_McCann

#115 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 22 December 2019 - 10:48 AM

Well, this assumes that the mass of players are all at equal levels of talent. In reality, the best prospects would get into bidding wars and still get significantly more than they would under the current restricted market.

 

I think this is right.  You'd see the same thing we're seeing in the FA market.  Teams are over-paying for the perception of elite talent and the rest of the market takes a hit. 

 

You'd have extreme projection (hype) on a number of prospects (and subsequent costs) but the cost projection wouldn't hold up for the rest of the group....simply because the money isn't there to hold up that model across the board.

 

....but we still don't know how a guy like Wilson falls out in the 'free agent' market.  By the time you get to where-ever he is, the money might not be there to value him at 13M....or maybe he's a guy that gets fought over (he got more than slot in the draft) so maybe he's even more (I don't know).

 

....but when it's not a free market for youth, we can sort of do what Mackus is doing.  It's a restricted market so teams have to figure out where they consider value, but it's so much more complicated inside of what is going on.  That's another topic, but the community decides to use 'what happens' as the context for the next deal (how we get $$/WAR) but there's so many more things going but we can't handle it so we use a bunch of generalizations to wrap our hands around it.  It's always wrong, but we can write it in a chart on fangraphs so we don't care.

 

For example....you just don't 'buy' the #15 prospect from a team for a dead salary of 13M if they have no need to save money.  It's ONLY available as an option because there's some other considerations going on inside that creates the opportunity (situations to leverage).  It's specific, not general....and that is exactly what is wrong with the trade calculator site.there's so many other pierces inside of 'cost of availability' that don't have consideration inside of that tool.



#116 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,779 posts

Posted 22 December 2019 - 12:39 PM

We agree in general here, but I wanted to make one comment about what you keep saying.

What your saying is true, but it's only because it's framed against an environment that doesn't allow rampant spending on youth like this. IF EVERYONE was released and you had to sign guys (everyone) individually, there's not enough money for everyone to get the numbers you are throwing out in your anecdotal cases.

Where we utterly agree is that 'money' has value and <<shocker>> now it's apparently a thing.

Yep, absolutely if there was no draft then the guys signing as FAs likely don't get as much as the one offs who become available get due to the market being saturated. I had actually considered that but decided not to bring up that caveat since I was having trouble explaining the basics. I do think the off nominal cases are the closer apples to apples comparisons for the cost value of someone like Wilson or any prospect in general, rather than what they'd be worth if everyone was available. Cost of availability, I think you've called it before.

#117 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 22 December 2019 - 04:37 PM

I do think the off nominal cases are the closer apples to apples comparisons for the cost value of someone like Wilson or any prospect in general, rather than what they'd be worth if everyone was available. Cost of availability, I think you've called it before.

 

My comments are intended as comments as part of a discussion.  Again, we are largely agreeing here.

 

My only issue with the Diaz comp is that the Dodgers own a different financial profile than a lot of teams (basically all).  Other teams, especially ones that are up against some real or self-imposed limits are going to value those dollars more due to consequence of that money.  The Dodgers gave Diaz half of that money and paid the other half in tax (I think that's right) from spending excess.  

 

The Dodgers can access a very different set of resources and this application has no impact on LuX Tax, etc. 

The RedSox did the same thing with Moncada.  They could afford it at a different level.

 

It's why using the Cole contract to assess the "cost per WAR" is silly, but exactly what is baked into the 'analysis'. 

It's why the 'surplus value' discussion is a joke.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners