Valuation for Various Braves Assets

[nsacpi]

There is a fair amount of research on expected surplus value of prospects ranked at various points in the Top 100 and those outside it. Taking that research and current rankings, and making a few adjustments to reflect my own biases, here is a rough valuation of our various prospects. Plus as a bonus a few already in the majors. The metric used is expected surplus value through the end of contractual control. (Expected WAR minus the expected cost of those wins).

Swanson: 9
Albies: 8
Newcomb: 6
Allard: 6
Soroka: 6
Acuna: 5
Maitan: 5
Anderson: 3
Toussaint: 3
Fried: 3

There is a large group I would put at 2. You could argue for the players in the 2-3 range for one more or one less, but it is small potatoes.

Among major leaguers of interest.

Inciarte: 8
Teheran: 10
Mallex: 3

Anyhow I would like to move on to a discussion of what we probably would have to give up for guys like Sale, Gray and Archer. The next step is to put on some valuation for those guys. But first hopefully some discussion of the valuation of our own assets.

 

[Enscheff]

FG just did exactly this for Sale and Archer:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-archer-is-likely-to-cost-more-than-chris-sale/

Sale: $84.5M surplus value
Archer: $128.5M surplus value

http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/how-much-an-mlb-prospect-is-worth-updated-trade-surplus-values/

Here are the estimated surplus value of the Braves Top 100 prospects (plus a little inflation added by me):

Swanson (#4): $50M surplus
Albies (#12): $40M
Newcomb (#46): $15M
Allard (#60): $10M
Anderson (#77): $10M
Maitan (#89): $12M
Soroka (#90): $10M

I have read a lot of chatter that Acuna is almost certainly a Top 100 guy so:

Acuna (#75-#100): $10M

Teheran and Freeman won't be traded, but here are the guys with MLB experience:

Inciarte: ~15 WAR over 4 arb years for ~$30M = $90M surplus (heavily dependent on defensive valuation and playing CF)
Folty: ~15 WAR over 5 years for ~$50M = $70M (heavily dependent on him "figuring it out")
Mallex: ~9 WAR over 5 years for ~$20M = $52M (figure drops fast once he starts to exhaust pre-arb years)

Everything else is nearly worthless in terms of a Sale/Archer/Quintana/Gray trade. However, one interesting player on the ChiSox is:

Shields: 0 WAR over 2 years for $24M = -$24M surplus value

Taking on Shields might lower the cost going back for Sale. Something like Inciarte for Sale plus Shields might make some sense if the ChiSox want to shed payroll.

 

[nsacpi]

I would put Chris Sale's expected surplus value at 11

 

[Enscheff]

I have no idea where you are coming up with these values for the prospects. If someone like Newcomb, Allard or Soroka is worth 6 wins of surplus, or $50M, you are saying he is worth as much as the average Top 10 hitting prospect. Guys like Fried, Touki and Anderson at 3 surplus wins would be $25M, or the average surplus value of a Top 25 pitcher.

These values seem wildly optimistic for the Braves prospects.

 

[nsacpi]

I have no idea where you are coming up with these values for the prospects. If someone like Newcomb, Allard or Soroka is worth 6 wins of surplus, or $50M, you are saying he is worth as much as the average Top 10 hitting prospect. Guys like Fried, Touki and Anderson at 3 surplus wins would be $25M, or the average surplus value of a Top 25 pitcher.

These values seem wildly optimistic for the Braves prospects.

My point of departure.

http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2016-updated-edition/

Plus some idiosyncratic adjustments that I'm entitled to as a grand poobah.

 

[50PoundHead]

I would put Chris Sale's expected surplus value at 11

[video=youtube;4xgx4k83zzc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc[/video]

 

[Enscheff]

My point of departure.

http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2016-updated-edition/

Plus some idiosyncratic adjustments that I'm entitled to as a grand poobah.

"Idiosyncratic adjustments" mean essentially doubling the value of those prospects compared to the starting point?

 

[nsacpi]

"Idiosyncratic adjustments" mean essentially doubling the value of those prospects compared to the starting point?

Am I doing that? The value of a Top 10 hitter is estimated in the article at 74M. They also assume a market price of 8M/win. So 9 wins surplus value. That's where I am for Swanson.

For a guy in the Top 25, the relevant numbers are 62M or about 8 wins. That's where I am at for Albies.

For some of the other guys, notably Allard, Soroka, Acuna and Maitan, I'm inclined to put on a higher valuation than their current rankings would suggest. That is my grand poobah adjustment.

What would your numbers be for Swanson, Albies, Allard, Soroka, Acuna and Maitan?

 

[thewupk]

I have no idea where you are coming up with these values for the prospects. If someone like Newcomb, Allard or Soroka is worth 6 wins of surplus, or $50M, you are saying he is worth as much as the average Top 10 hitting prospect. Guys like Fried, Touki and Anderson at 3 surplus wins would be $25M, or the average surplus value of a Top 25 pitcher.

These values seem wildly optimistic for the Braves prospects.

The article that was posted is saying that a top 10 hitting prospect is no longer at 50 million surplus but 73. And these numbers are constantly rising as FA salaries continue to explode.

edit: And these numbers may even be higher now since that was for the 2016 season. We can probably expect an update within a couple of months for 2017 numbers.

 

[Enscheff]

The article that was posted is saying that a top 10 hitting prospect is no longer at 50 million surplus but 73. And these numbers are constantly rising as FA salaries continue to explode.

edit: And these numbers may even be higher now since that was for the 2016 season. We can probably expect an update within a couple of months for 2017 numbers.

Holy crap, now I see I was using an outdated source for my prospect values!

 

[Enscheff]

Am I doing that? The value of a Top 10 hitter is estimated in the article at 74M. They also assume a market price of 8M/win. So 9 wins surplus value. That's where I am for Swanson.

For a guy in the Top 25, the relevant numbers are 62M or about 8 wins. That's where I am at for Albies.

For some of the other guys, notably Allard, Soroka, Acuna and Maitan, I'm inclined to put on a higher valuation than their current rankings would suggest. That is my grand poobah adjustment.

What would your numbers be for Swanson, Albies, Allard, Soroka, Acuna and Maitan?

I don't think I'm that far off from your estimates now that I'm looking at the values in the newer article. It looks like what I was calling your factor of 2 incrase was actually my failure to use the most current info.

These values are probably pretty reflective of how the industry values these guys, so I don't see a need to adjust them based on my hunches since their trade value is determined by other teams, not how much of a fan I am of any particular player.

So my valuations, which are pretty much just looking up their ranking in the table:

Swanson (#4): $73.5M surplus
Albies (#12): $68M
Newcomb (#46): $30M
Allard (#60): $18M
Anderson (#77): $16M
Maitan (#89): $20M (no way I would trade him for that value)
Soroka (#90): $15M

I have read a lot of chatter that Acuna is almost certainly a Top 100 guy so:

Acuna (#75-#100): $15M (no way I trade him for that value)

Guys who are lower on the Top 100 lists are guys who are either young and volatile, or older with a low ceiling. All of the guys who rank 50+ for the Braves fall into the young and volatile camp, so I wouldn't trade them now. Instead, I would wait for them to rise up these lists and double/triple their value in 1-2 years.

The only prospect I would be willing to deal for his value listed above is Newcomb. If he is the centerpiece for a deal to acquire an MLB asset with ~$30M in surplus value I think the Braves should pounce. He is exactly the kind of "older prospect" in the middle of the list that has less upside to improve his value.

 

[nsacpi]

thats why i prefer to state surplus value in terms of wins...no need to adjust for inflation

 

[nsacpi]

it seems to me it would be very hard to put together a package for Sale that would not involve Albies, Inciarte or Swanson...on the other hand we shouldnt be willing to add much to a package that included one of those three

 

[dak]

it seems to me it would be very hard to put together a package for Sale that would not involve Albies, Inciarte or Swanson...on the other hand we shouldnt be willing to add much to a package that included one of those three

Agreed. When talking about a guy as valuable as Sale, part of the return has to be a young MLB player or a top prospect who is viewed to be MLB ready in early 2017. I don't view Albies' current value to be as high as that of Inciarte or Swanson, so an Ablies-based deal would take a larger package.

I'm not on board with the idea of going after Sale this offseason. A year from now, a trade like this would make more sense. If we're inclined to make a trade, I'd prefer something with a relatively lower cost and lower return. All those options are of course imperfect, but Drew Smyly would be an example at the higher end of what I'm thinking. My preference would still be to go the FA route and go after a lefty coming back from injury like Anderson or Holland.

 

[GovClintonTyree]

I don't think I'm that far off from your estimates now that I'm looking at the values in the newer article. It looks like what I was calling your factor of 2 incrase was actually my failure to use the most current info.

You dumb ****. Why can't you properly research your posts?

 

[nsacpi]

Moving on to Archer and Gray. I've discussed Archer in some detail previously. His expected surplus value is higher than Sale. About 13 compared to 11 for Sale. Not because he is the better pitcher but because of the contract.

Gray is a 3-4 win player moving into his arb years. The surplus is about half of the production for the arb years. So he projects at an expected surplus of 5 wins over the remaining years of contractual control.

Looking at our prospects here is what a fair value trade would look like.

For Sale, it would be one of Albies/Inciarte plus one of Toussaint/Fried/Anderson.

For Archer, it would be one of Albies/Inciarte plus one of Acuna/Maitan/Soroka/Newcomb/Allard.

For Gray, it would be one of Acuna/Maitan/Soroka/Newcomb/Allard.

We could try to package a larger number of lesser prospects, but I suspect the teams we are trading with will insist on a smaller package of higher rated guys. ymmv

Btw, those are fair value trades. Given there is no urgent reason to do these trades, we should be looking to win any trades of this kind.

 

[Enscheff]

If the Braves could get Sale for Inciarte and one of the A ball pitchers I think the deal would be done by now.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that no team in the game would trade a controllable Ace for a player whose value is mainly drawn from defense, regardless of what the value calculations suggest. Additionally, I think the same holds true for an injured guy at 2B with zero power and zero MLB experience...Albies isn't going to be the centerpiece for Sale or Archer either.

I keep going back to Folty as the centerpiece for Sale. If the ChiSox or Rays view him as the next Verlander, and the Braves view him ultimately as a BP arm or a frustrating "stuff" pitcher that won't take the next step, there might be enough of a valuation mismatch between the two organizations to get a deal going. It would be similar to when the Rays traded Price for a package centered around Smyly.

 

[dak]

Moving on to Archer and Gray. I've discussed Archer in some detail previously. His expected surplus value is higher than Sale. About 13 compared to 11 for Sale. Not because he is the better pitcher but because of the contract.

Gray is a 3-4 win player moving into his arb years. The surplus is about half of the production for the arb years. So he projects at an expected surplus of 5 wins over the remaining years of contractual control.

Looking at our prospects here is what a fair value trade would look like.

For Sale, it would be one of Albies/Inciarte plus one of Toussaint/Fried/Anderson.

For Archer, it would be one of Albies/Inciarte plus one of Acuna/Maitan/Soroka/Newcomb/Allard.

For Gray, it would be one of Acuna/Maitan/Soroka/Newcomb/Allard.

We could try to package a larger number of lesser prospects, but I suspect the teams we are trading with will insist on a smaller package of higher rated guys. ymmv

Btw, those are fair value trades. Given there is no urgent reason to do these trades, we should be looking to win any trades of this kind.

Nice analysis. The only part I feel differently on is what I've bolded. I think the selling teams will have significant leverage in this market when dealing SP with multiple years of control. It's unlikely that any buying team on Archer / Sale / Gray would be able to win the deal from a valuation standpoint.

For purposes of future embarrassment, below are some guesses of my own (intention is to get in the right ballpark more so than to be predictive on the players).

Archer: Foltynewicz, Inciarte, Albies, Newcomb, Allard
Sale: Albies, Smith, Newcomb, Touissant, Riley
Gray: Albies, Touissant, Fried

 

[nsacpi]

Nice analysis. The only part I feel differently on is what I've bolded. I think the selling teams will have significant leverage in this market when dealing SP with multiple years of control. It's unlikely that any buying team on Archer / Sale / Gray would be able to win the deal from a valuation standpoint.

For purposes of future embarrassment, below are some guesses of my own (intention is to get in the right ballpark more so than to be predictive on the players).

Archer: Foltynewicz, Inciarte, Albies, Newcomb, Allard
Sale: Albies, Smith, Newcomb, Touissant, Riley
Gray: Albies, Touissant, Fried

would you be in favor of the braves doing any of these

 

[dak]

would you be in favor of the braves doing any of these

I would not. We have some pitching depth at the AAA level that is a bit of a bottleneck in getting guys innings this year, so I'd prefer any trades to be from that depth in order to acquire a solid veteran with 2 years of control or so (SP, C and Utility being the targets).