I don't even know what you're talking about now. And I've stopped caring.Originally Posted by smootness
The idea is too complex for you, so I'll just drop it.
I don't even know what you're talking about now. And I've stopped caring.
The idea is too complex for you, so I'll just drop it.
Sorry you're having such trouble.
1) You said you're replacing Sale with a top prospect acquired from a prior year's trade.
2) My point is that you have that prospect for that year regardless of whether you trade Sale. There is nothing preventing you from calling up said prospect without trading Sale.
3) Therefore, the only change being made is downgrading from Sale on your roster to Dickey. Unless you only make room for the prospect by trading Sale, in which case the prospect is not yet good enough to matter.
Again, I am only talking about the year in which you trade Sale. You are making that team significantly worse by trading him. Yes, you are helping the future. That is a given. And I understand you don't have that top prospect if you don't subscribe to this philosophy on an ongoing basis. But pretending it is irrational to not trade all of your best pitchers with 2 years left is insane. It is a good way to continually add talent and may even add value in the long run. It also may not, as there is risk, and it definitely makes you worse when you're trying to win a championship.
So I will ask my primary question again, since you still haven't answered it:
Why are you ok with a contending team buying at the deadline?
I have no clue how this question fits into the discussion, and the answer is completely self evident, so I'll ignore it.
As for your earlier post, yes, the team is downgrading from Sale to the prospect. In the meantime, they are upgrading the talent level of the entire organization. They are maximizing overall player value.
That is the whole point...give up 2-3 wins one year to add 2-3 wins over several future years. That's how rebuilding can be avoided.
The Rays and A's forego trying to win 90+ games in a single year to enable themselves to win 85+ games every year. That's the point of the process...to be consistently good, and to never be "all in". By definition, being "all in" must be followed by being "all out". We are seeing how ****ty "all out" is.
With superior resources, the Braves won't be making the choice between 90+ wins one year or 85+ wins every year...they will be choosing between 90+ wins every year or 95+ wins one year.
Anyhow, it's been fun saying the same thing over and over and over.
This is my entire point. You definitely are reducing your ceiling. I think it's fine if a franchise goes down that road, I just don't get why you're so adamant it is the clear best strategy. You increase your chances in the down years while decreasing your chances in the up years.
But the answer to the prior question is not self-evident. I'm an idiot, remember?
You think it is imperative to continually sell pitching with 2 years left to continue to re-stock the system, even when you possess a clearly contending team. But it is ok to also buy those same pitchers by selling assets? How does that not contradict your overall strategy, especially given that you're paying the premium at the deadline?
Sigh...
Because at the beginning of any given year, a team is not positive it is a contender.
At the trade deadline, a team knows if they are a contender. It makes sense to convert future value to present value at that point.
You know? The whole basis behind the contender's premium at the deadline?
Do I really need to walk you and Southcrack and mrfree through all these logical steps?
You don't know if you're a contender to start the year...so you trade your ace for prospects, reducing the chance of you actually being a contender. Then if you do actually contend, you turn around and sell the same type of prospects to get an ace back? And the contenders premium means you're actually having to sell more just to get back to where you were.
And I thought you sell with 2 years left no matter what solely for the purpose of getting value back in future talent. If that is the hard rule and the best way to maximize value, why would you ever be ok doing the reverse? You're not going to add talent that way and keep the cycle going. This is all about avoiding down years, right? If you're selling your future pieces to go for it, you're increasing the chances of those down years. And you're definitely going 'all in' at that point.
Your positions aren't consistent.
Last time I'm going to say the same thing over and over.
You sell Sale with 2 years left ($60M+ surplus value) at the beginning of the season for Billy Moncodo and Dante Kepoch. You buy 2 months of Darvish at the deadline ($20M surplus value, including premium) if you end up needing a TOR guy for significantly less than Moncodo and Kepoch.
And you don't see how your organization came out ahead in value? Really? You don't see how 60 - 20 = 40?
Further, go back and read what I actually wrote. Then answer if I said "sell no matter what", or did I say "look to sell"? You are literally reading what you want to read just so you can disagree with me.
There is a fundamental disconnect with the way you value assets. No amount of explaining will bridge that gap apparently. You're going to disagree with anything I say, logic be damned.
So yeah, like I said, feel free to come up with your own process...or don't.
Last edited by Enscheff; 07-21-2017 at 01:46 AM.
I can only speak for myself, but I do understand that you want to trade pitchers with two years left on their contracts for the purpose of revamping the farm system (or for young MLB talent). That's a very reasonable proposition.
However, if we look at the Rays and the As, have they really been entirely successful at avoiding rebuilding? The As have recently had a five year gap in contention and now are in the midst of a three year gap that probably isn't going to be ended by trading Sonny Gray and assorted other pieces.
The Rays had a really nice core for a bit and have now taken three years off. They could could conceivably fall on either side of the .500 line this year though they currently are in the wild card by a game or two.
Is that better than the Astros playing their last championship core to the hilt and then blowing it up for six years?
Is it better than the Braves contending for 15 years, the last of it on fumes, and then having three losing seasons?
This seems like a subjective question, not an objective one.
Am I reading this right, you replace Sale with RA Dickey and Lucas Giolito?
This is completely the right strategy if you are not a contender and do not expect to be a contender....
If you are a contender, this logic is stupid. You sort through a hundred pitchers to try to find a couple that you can develop and actually produce at the major league level. When you finally get them (and want to contend), do you keep them or kick the can down the road even longer and replace with a crappy vet and a top prospect? This strategy is exactly why the As and Rays can forever be in mediocrity. They could always load up and go for it, which would give them a short window, but they would then likely be forced to rebuild for years. But, what is better, to be average or contend some and be awful some?
"Yes, I did think Aldrich was good UNTIL I SAW HIM PLAY. "- thethe
this is my thought. Why do I want my team following teams who live in average purgatory. Give me bad for 3-5 years and great for 3-5 years.. hopefully you do somethings right and you can be great for 5-10 years.
Coppy
I'd be interested in an in-depth look at the Cards. Their secret sauce seems to begin with nailing the draft and developing prospects. And not overpaying veterans is in there too.
I feel like they probably do move some guys near the end of their contracts, but don't really remember them giving up a huge piece for prospects.
one losing season since 2000, so that's a study.
Being a Marlins fan or an As fan doesn't seem like much fun.
For the record, I am generally not a fan of buying at the deadline to 'go for it' specifically because you're giving up your future to maybe marginally help your chances in the postseason. It's too much of a risk. So I fully understand the desire to look toward the future even while you're in contention. You don't want to shorten your window if you can avoid it.
But I definitely don't understand the idea of selling your pitchers with 2 years left even when you have a team who can contend, and I especially don't get it when you might just turn right back around and buy at the deadline. Using Sale and Darvish is just one specific example. Of course I understand how you come out ahead on future value by doing that. But what if Darvish is the guy you're selling instead of Sale? You now have to buy someone worse than Darvish at the deadline? Does that help you? You would always have to buy someone worse than the guy you sold for that strategy to help you for the future, but it still by definition hurts you in the present.
If your strategy really is simply 'look to sell, if it makes sense,' then I have no idea why you've been so belligerent about it for so long. That is certainly reasonable, you should always be looking into all options. And I wouldn't completely rule out trading a pitcher with 2 years left even if you're in a 'window'. But making it some kind of rule? That seems dumb.
Nobody in this thread has posted a single argument supported by data. Here's the only data you need to know.
Pitcher aging curves:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitch...-introduction/
Slope of the FIP line increases after 26, and again after 30. Velocity decreases after 26, then tanks as they approach 30.
Another:
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...g-aging-curves
Again, pitcher value peaks at 26, and is roughly 75% of peak by age 30. The number of pitchers in the league follows the same curve, meaning they are out of baseball either through injury or poor performance.
So yeah, all available evidence suggests it's wise to dump pitchers after their peak at age 26.
It doesn't matter what you think, or what you want to see your team do. Pitchers peak around 26 and then decline rapidly. The best way to maximize overall value from them is to dump them before they decline too much. Meaning, get rid of them before they hit 30...which is why my process trades them by age 28-29.
Last edited by Enscheff; 07-21-2017 at 10:41 AM.
I don't think anyone is disputing that you are, on average, maximizing value by trading a pitcher with 2 years left. The question comes down to whether or not it is wise to replace current value for future value when your team is good enough to win a championship..
You have admitted you are ok with overpaying, thus not maximizing value, at the deadline if you are in contention. So everyone seems to agree that you want to try to maximize value while still attempting to win championships. There is just a disagreement in when to do it and where to lean.
I don't like selling in the offseason just to maximize value, and I also don't like buying at the deadline in most cases regardless of how good your team is. You are ok doing both of those things. To some degree, we both contradict ourselves, but the reality is that it is tough to straddle the line.
Last edited by smootness; 07-21-2017 at 10:38 AM.
Who should we trade to get Kershaw.
Coppy
I don't think he understands that getting "maximum value" does not equate to winning. The 32 year old may not have as much value (in terms of production vs. cost), but his production is a hell of a lot better than a 22 year old. And you aren't going to find a decent vet for cheap to replace the 26 year old you are trading away. Plus, the likelihood of the prospect replacing the production of the guy you are trading is slim.
Great strategy for forever being mediocre. Bad strategy for winning.
"Yes, I did think Aldrich was good UNTIL I SAW HIM PLAY. "- thethe
Super (07-21-2017)
Know how to tell when you're wrong?
You bring up a generational player as your arguement.
Oh, sorry.. didn't realize there are *
Coppy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote