Winter Meetings Thread

$/WAR is determined based off the FA market, right?

If we all acknowledge that high WAR players are a better value than low WAR players that demonstrates solidly the futility of using an average $/WAR. This is before considering the relative value of a $ per team and the different market valuation of different WAR components in the open market. I don't think $/WAR (in the simplest sense) is even a useful rule of thumb.to a

It's certainly not a good barometer to approximate the value of a potential Joe Ross trade.
 
I was just about to post that tweet, Dak. To me, Boston makes the most sense. That team would absolutely stacked.
 
chop2chip said:
$/WAR is determined based off the FA market, right?

If we all acknowledge that high WAR players are a better value than low WAR players that demonstrates solidly the futility of using an average $/WAR. This is before considering the relative value of a $ per team and the different market valuation of different WAR components in the open market. I don't think $/WAR (in the simplest sense) is even a useful rule of thumb.to a

It's certainly not a good barometer to approximate the value of a potential Joe Ross trade.
Click to expand...

I don't see the issue in using $/WAR as an indicator. If you are saying Ross is X good (WAR) and he's getting paid x, then this is how valuable he is as a trade asset compared to another player that is getting paid more.
 
The #Redsox and #Nats now in a dual battle for #WhiteSox ace Chris Sale with #Braves as dark horse

That was per Bob Nightengale......sounds good, let the Nats and Sox run up the cost on each other.
 
Cotillo: Braves "love" Chris Sale and are still trying to acquire him, baseball source tells SB Nation. Atlanta not making as much progress as others
 
chop2chip said:
$/WAR is determined based off the FA market, right?

If we all acknowledge that high WAR players are a better value than low WAR players that demonstrates solidly the futility of using an average $/WAR. This is before considering the relative value of a $ per team and the different market valuation of different WAR components in the open market. I don't think $/WAR (in the simplest sense) is even a useful rule of thumb.to a

It's certainly not a good barometer to approximate the value of a potential Joe Ross trade.
Click to expand...

$/WAR is based on the FA market because that is where $/WAR can be evaluated. If a player literally costs a certain $/WAR on the FA market, then that is, by definition, his value no matter how he was acquired.

This really isn't a complex concept to grasp. You are only questioning it because it shows Joe Ross' value is close to or greater than Julio's value, and your homerism can't handle it. Young average MLB players making the minimum are extremely valuable whether you choose to grasp that fact or not.
 
gilesfan said:
I don't see the issue in using $/WAR as an indicator. If you are saying Ross is X good (WAR) and he's getting paid x, then this is how valuable he is as a trade asset compared to another player that is getting paid more.
Click to expand...

Disentangling the two is fine, which is what everyone does. Obviously, Anthony Rizzo is really good and he's being paid little money. That's very intuitive.

The difference, as an economist would like to say, is at the margins. Bryce Harper in has last two years as a free agent is going to provide, by $/WAR's standard, something like $60-80 in surplus value. Are five years of Chris Archer (whose worth somewhere around $80-100 in surplus value) worth two years of Bryce Harper plus a prospect? No.

I understand the limitations of that analysis. I do understand teams do have some form of $/WAR that likely adjusts for market, position, offense/defense, etc., so this is more of a critique of using linear $/WAR. IMO, it's one of those things that's not very useful unless it's done correctly.
 
Enscheff said:
$/WAR is based on the FA market because that is where $/WAR can be evaluated. If a player literally costs a certain $/WAR on the FA market, then that is, by definition, his value no matter how he was acquired. :elefant:

This really isn't a complex concept to grasp.
Click to expand...

Got it. A $ for the Rays is the same as a $ for the Dodgers. Didn't know that.

It all makes so much more sense now.
 
chop2chip said:
Disentangling the two is fine, which is what everyone does. Obviously, Anthony Rizzo is really good and he's being paid little money. That's very intuitive.

The difference, as an economist would like to say, is at the margins. Bryce Harper in has last two years as a free agent is going to provide, by $/WAR's standard, something like $60-80 in surplus value. Are five years of Chris Archer (whose worth somewhere around $80-100 in surplus value) worth two years of Bryce Harper plus a prospect? No.

I understand the limitations of that analysis. I do understand teams do have some form of $/WAR that likely adjusts for market, position, offense/defense, etc., so this is more of a critique of using linear $/WAR. IMO, it's one of those things that's not very useful unless it's done correctly.
Click to expand...

This is where team specific situations come into play. A team looking to win now would trade a cheap and good for the future player for a stud player who only has a couple of years left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top