i doubt anyone was offering a guy like mejia for hand last season when hand was an impending FA.Originally Posted by Southcack77
i doubt anyone was offering a guy like mejia for hand last season when hand was an impending FA.
"Well, you’ll learn soon enough that this was a massive red wave landslide." - thethe on the 2020 election that trump lost bigly
“I can’t fix my life, but I can fix the world.” - sturg
Or the situation where the player being moved would be of interest to more teams in the offseason than at the trade deadline. For example, a player like DeGrom might be of interest to lots of teams that are not clearly in this year's playoff picture but who would not be willing to pay a premium.
Or where the return that the seller wanted would be more likely to be available in the offseason. For example, where a team wanted a proven major league player. That's more difficult to get at the trade deadline than in the offseason. A contender would be less likely to give up major league ready position players for DeGrom at the deadline than in the offseason. For example, say the Yankees sign Machado and want DeGrom. The Mets could well be able to get Andujar. Or Devers from Boston. Players that would not be available in the heat of the playoffs.
Hand was not a pending free agent. By service time they controlled 2018 and 2019 under arb. The extension bought them 2020 and an option on 2021.
I think that someone like Claudio would make a lot of sense. He hasn't been as good this year as he has in the past, but is relatively young, handles lefties well, and is under control for several more seasons. I don't think that last point really matters a ton, given that relievers are so volatile. But given what type of player he is I don't see those years of control driving up his price THAT much. It likely will a little bit, but I think he could still be had at a reasonable cost. Avilan could make a good bit of sense too. I wonder if AA is wanting to make a bigger splash with someone like the artist formerly known as Felipe Rivera.
I also wonder how much one of the younger relief arms would cost us. Someone along the lines of Jose Alvarado or Joe Jimenez. I'm sure the cost would be well above what we are comfortable with, but if AA is looking to get talented AND controllable players, those guys might come cheaper than a SP or a position player. That is probably a stupid idea, but I'm just spitballing at this point lol
The hell?
They extended his control and made him more valuable. They then traded him at the first chance they got. They did not hold him until this upcoming off season because his value would have decreased.
Purple is saying that holding an asset and losing control will not affect the value.
You really don't see the difference here lol?
There are certainly examples where very expensive players become hard to move during the season, or players with health issues need to prove they are back, but trade value decreases as control decreases. It is Trade Value 101.
Now continue with your regularly scheduled contrarian comments without a point.
Last edited by Enscheff; 07-25-2018 at 12:02 PM.
I can guarantee that they did not come close to getting back a top 15 overall prospect for Brad Hand last year. At that point he was a rental who was less accomplished at that point than Britton. Britton was worth a 45ish FV pitcher, a relief prospect, and lottery ticket. Hand probably would have been worth just Tate, if that even. Instead, with the control, they got one of the best prospects in baseball. That is a huge difference.
Edit: Apparently they still controlled him through this year so he wasn't a rental, but still he held far less value than he does now. Maybe the Britton deal in its entirety would have gotten him last offseason. But he wouldn't have fetched close to Mejia.
Last edited by BeanieAntics; 07-25-2018 at 12:06 PM.
The Padres fielded offers on Hand, who had two full years of control left at the 2017 deadline, and put a big price tag on him.
They then extended him in January 2018, just ahead of his arbitration hearing. immediately articles were written about how that did not necessarily remove him from the trading block.
They then traded him at the 2018 trade deadline.
....
I have no general argument with the idea that control tends to increase trade value. But a team with multiple years of control remaining is not necessarily in a position where they have to jump at whatever is offered. That's the whole idea of leverage.
The Padres set a big price tag on him. They waited to see if they could get it because they had the luxury of doing so.
That's the point. You want to make a different one. I don't disagree with it.
Last edited by Southcack77; 07-25-2018 at 12:21 PM.
they controlled him through 2019.
Now you aren't even being pointlessly contrarian on topic.
Again, Purple did not say a team has to "jump at whatever is offered". He said the value doesn't go down. He was wrong. This is Trade Value 101.
The Padres were wannabe contenders as well, as evidenced by their signing of Hosmer. More than Hand's trade value certainly went into their decision not to trade him 12 months ago, but his value undoubtedly decreased between the deadline and the off season. It then increased when they extended him to a value contract.
His trade value increased/decreased based on his control...Trade Value 101.
Simply put. Hand had more trade value this year than he did a year ago and the reason for that was the extra time he was signed for.
Before signing the extension, Hand was under control through 2019. So he had a lot of value last trade deadline. He was definitely not a rental at that point.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
jpx7 (07-25-2018)
I'm not Purple so I don't know what that has to do with me.
In the thread, you had one poster saying Hand was a pending free agent. He wasn't.
And it appeared you were saying that the Padres were not shopping him because they extended him. But the Padres were shopping him and they extended him at a much later date.
My point is that when you have a player with 2.5 years of control left there is no real urgency for a team to trade him. Certainly, his value is theoretically greatest when he has the most control, but that doesn't mean a team is going to feel pressured to take the best offer at the deadline. That's the point I have made in the thread. And I'm making it questioning whether the theory that waiting until the deadline on controllable assets is going to significantly reduce their price for trade at this deadline. A team is unlikely to value an asset at anything less than what they think his 2.5 years of control is worth.
It's not an attempt to directly refute your pretty basic point that more years of control = more value. You don't have to consider it an attack on what you said.
Preller is a guy who tries to do clever things. At no point, IMO, was Brad Hand ever really off the market. He was just someone that the Padres were going to value very dearly and were content to some degree to retain if they didn't get the price.
............
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...730-story.html
July 30, 2017
As of early Sunday night, Brad Hand was still in a Padres uniform. While talks with multiple clubs continued, no deal to send the All-Star lefty elsewhere seemed imminent.
Much, of course, can change in the final hours preceding Monday’s 1 p.m. trade deadline — and sources say a decision could come down to the wire — but there was more than a faint possibility of Hand staying in San Diego.
In an interview Wednesday on The Mighty 1090, Executive Chairman Ron Fowler said the Padres were prepared to hold on to their top bullpen arm.
“Other things being equal, right now I don’t see us moving him, because we value him more than what’s being offered and we think he could be part of the team for the foreseeable future,” Fowler said.
Sunday, rival officials continued to describe an exorbitant asking price. Meanwhile, the Padres did not appear ready to budge. Hand, who hasn’t allowed a run in his last 19 appearances, has raised his value to an all-time high.
“We know what will motivate us,” one team official said.
A number of scouts surveyed regarding available left-handed relievers rated Hand above Detroit’s Justin Wilson and slightly below Baltimore’s Zach Britton (it was unclear if the Orioles actually would trade Britton). Both Britton and Wilson have one year of club control left. Hand won’t be eligible for free agency until after 2019 — a key factor behind the Padres’ demands.
Absent a trade before the deadline, the Padres could attempt to move Hand this winter or next summer, and an evaluator from another team suggested they could net the “same return or better.” If they go that route, they would risk injury or a decline in performance. (The former is arguably the larger concern, and Hand has been on the major league disabled list only once, thanks to an ankle sprain.)
For his part, Hand has said he would be happy to remain in San Diego. Manager Andy Green has admitted he would like to keep his best reliever. Neither would be surprised if the opposite occurs.
“I trust the judgment of (General Manager A.J. Preller) and everybody in the front office to put us in whatever position’s going to make us most successful for the long run,” Green said Sunday morning. “...Do I enjoy Brad Hand here? Sure, what manager wouldn’t be? I’m thrilled every time I can reach down there and put him in a game. He understands, I understand, everybody understands where we are and what we’re trying to do.”
In July 2017, Hand was controlled through the 2017 season and for 2018 and 2019.
In July 2018, Hand was controlled through the 2018 season, and for 2019 and 2020 with an option for 2021. He was also more expensive and older and coming off a not quite as dominant season. But sure, for the most part I agree with you.
But nothing about those facts put any pressure on the Padres to move him at last year's deadline. That's my point. They had the option of retaining him and trying to contend. They had the option of extending him. Of moving him at a later date and hoping they lucked into a unicorn deal as happens from time to time. So no, they felt no pressure to move him at the deadline and his price tag did not decline as it got closer.
and they were able to maintain or increase his value once they did elect to hold on to him.
Yeah I didn't realize he still had some years of arbitration left. I still don't think he would have commanded a top 15 prospect though.
Value is relative to what someone is willing to give up. If I have a baseball card that Beckett says is $100, but the highest bid I have is $50, is the card really worth $100 or $50?
If the Tigers only have the Braves and some other team asking about Castellanos and they don't like the offers, they walk away and wait until the off-season when more teams are willing enter the bidding. That will drive up the price. Suddenly someone is offering $70 for my baseball card instead of $50.
The Padres wanted a Mejia level prospect last year for Hand and they weren't getting it. Hand was extended to avoid arbitration, he wasn't a pending free agent. They waited and they got what they wanted. Chris Sale is another example. Evan Longoria.
This certainly isn't fool proof as you can walk away then the player gets hurt, teams call your bluff, or the demand for a player isn't what you thought it would be. In the off season, there's the possibility of more teams entering the bidding war to drive up a player's value.
That only happened because they chose to extend him though, which I guess is your point. That teams with control have the option to extend him, thereby increasing his trade value? How often does that really happen though? How often has a team not made a trade at the deadline, decided to extend him, and then got more the next year because of the extension. I can't imagine that it happens very often. And in cases where it doesn't happen, that player's value goes down after the deadline.
This just simply is not the case. The Padres got more because they extended him, not because they didn't trade him last year so all of a sudden more teams wanted him or something like that. He had more control this year than he did last year, hence the higher price. I don't know how that is comparable to Longoria or Sale. Those are two guys who have years of control left. Longoria is a weird case because his controlability probably made him less valuable, considering he was expensive and was only producing league average numbers at the time of his trade. Sale was a top shelf pitcher with 4 years of control left and he fetched a huge haul. You know what would of fetched more than that? If Sale had been traded with 4.5 years of control or 5 years of control.
And no, the Tigers won't get a better return for Castellanos if they wait until the offseason. Maybe more teams enter the fold for him, but that doesn't mean that all those teams are suddenly going to start offering more. The main factor is that he will have .5 years less of control, which means that teams won't pay as much for him. They also probably wouldn't have to pay a contender's premium, because at the deadline it is more clear who the actual contenders are than in the offseason where it is just this ambiguous idea that you might be a contender.
Another person trying to explain supply and demand to me with regards to trade value? It's the same thing every trade season lol.
If Beckett represents the industry consensus on value, then yes, the value is $100. Just because you have limited your market in such a way (perhaps through no fault of your own) that you can't find a buyer for $100 does not change the value. You would be an idiot to sell it for $50 rather than fix the issue limiting your market.
If that fix is waiting for more buyers to walk into the store (waiting for the off season), you wait. If that fix is to get the card officially graded to make it even more valuable (the Hand extension), you do that.
Player value decreases as control decreases. That is Trade Value 101.
If current market conditions dictate that you can only get $50 for your $100 asset, then you wait for better market conditions, even if that means getting $80 for your $80 devalued asset later. That is Trade Value 102.
Last edited by Enscheff; 07-25-2018 at 01:33 PM.
That's not the way it works. Castenallos has a set value now. Whether anyone wants to pay that value is irrelevant. Now it can certainly increase/decrease based on different variables like performance or health, but losing half a year of control will most certainly decrease his value.
This is exactly what I'm saying. ...or trying to say.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote