2018 Trade Deadline ROSTERBATION

BeanieAntics said:
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.
Click to expand...

Extending players with remaining control isn't that unusual. I guess extending relievers might be more unusual than the general case, but my immediate hunch would be that it more team than player driven. Something as volatile and having as limited a high end market as relievers would seem to have the incentive to lock up the money while they can.

I can't think of too many examples, but Kimbrell would certainly be one.

I guess my point would be: what's so special about Preller or San Diego and the Brad Hand situation that a smart GM should think he could replicate?
 
PurpleBrave said:
This is exactly what I'm saying. ...or trying to say.
Click to expand...

Well okay then. That is a reasonable argument. But what you were saying made it seem like you could only get 50 dollars now, with a 100 dollar asset that is actively depreciating in value. Then you could wait for better market conditions in the offseason and get 120 dollars on your asset then because there are more buyers. But the fact is that you would get less because like 'Scheff said the market consensus has dropped.

I confused myself. I hate analogies lol
 
Southcack77 said:
Extending players with remaining control isn't that unusual. I guess extending relievers might be more unusual than the general case, but my immediate hunch would be that it more team than player driven. Something as volatile and having as limited a high end market as relievers would seem to have the incentive to lock up the money while they can.

I can't think of too many examples, but Kimbrell would certainly be one.

I guess my point would be: what's so special about Preller or San Diego and the Brad Hand situation that a smart GM should think he could replicate?
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking if that was unusual. I was asking if it is unusual for them to extend remaining control and then trading them at the next deadline. Those are pretty narrow circumstances and I doubt that its happened all that often. I don't know if it is a repeatable process either. How risky would it be to extend someone with the idea of increasing their trade value? Super risky. I'm sure that wasn't the Padres plan and they were just rolling with the cards dealt to them. But if a team did something like that and the player suddenly turns in to a pumpkin, which relievers a liable to do, you would be left with a big contract for a nobody player. I know that is the risk for all extensions, but it seems a little different if you are extending with the idea of trading the player at the earliest opportune moment.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's say you have an asset that is valued as follows:

2.5 years control 40 million (60 million)
2.0 years control 32 million
1.5 years control 24 million (36 million)
1.0 years control 16 million
.5 years control 8 million. (12 million)

At the deadline with 2.5 years remaining you are offered 30 million dollars in assets. Should you take the deal?

What if you are offered 40 million?
 
Jones seems washed up now...

Jon Heyman of Fancred reports that the Phillies have shown interest in Orioles outfielder Adam Jones.
Philly's biggest holes are on the left side of the infield and in the bullpen, but a right-handed-hitting addition to the outfield mix would make some sense too. Jones, an impending free agent, has batted .277/.304/.422 with 10 home runs and 38 RBI in 96 games this season for the last-place O's. There's also known to be some level of interest from the Indians.
Related: Phillies
 
BeanieAntics said:
I wasn't asking if that was unusual. I was asking if it is unusual for them to extend remaining control and then trading them at the next deadline. Those are pretty narrow circumstances and I doubt that its happened all that often. I don't know if it is a repeatable process either. How risky would it be to extend someone with the idea of increasing their trade value? Super risky. I'm sure that wasn't the Padres plan and they were just rolling with the cards dealt to them. But if a team did something like that and the player suddenly turns in to a pumpkin, which relievers a liable to do, you would be left with a big contract for a nobody player. I know that is the risk for all extensions, but it seems a little different if you are extending with the idea of trading the player at the earliest opportune moment.
Click to expand...

There is risk to any contract, it's true.

I can't think of anything that particularly makes Hand a special case as far as lacking leverage in agreeing to the extension. His concerns would be the same as most other relievers in that situation.

Preller extended him to what I guess he though and the market thought was a relatively team friendly deal. He could have kept him or moved him as situations dictated.

Similarly, the Braves ended up trading at least half of the Wren extensions. In signing those extensions did they consider that locking them up at attractive rates might make them trade assets? I'm sure they did to some degree even if they didn't intend on moving them.
 
If we could get Brach and Gsellman it would be nice depending on price and someone posted the Mets were among the teams scouting our lower minors last night. I have no idea where to go for a lefty, Diekman is trash.
 
Last edited:
Ozzie's Chainz said:
This is KyrieIrving1, thanks for mentioning this website on our Duke Braves Thread, I would have put down you referred me but I had no idea if you had the same name here, you weren't showing up on the members list.
Click to expand...

Love youuu 😘😘😘 And our Braves thread over there. Just been dealing with some IRL stuff lately.


Looks like brewers or Yanks for Happ atm...
 
Southcack77 said:
Let's say you have an asset that is valued as follows:

2.5 years control 40 million (60 million)
2.0 years control 32 million
1.5 years control 24 million (36 million)
1.0 years control 16 million
.5 years control 8 million. (12 million)

At the deadline with 2.5 years remaining you are offered 30 million dollars in assets. Should you take the deal?

What if you are offered 40 million?
Click to expand...

Not sure what those numbers are suppposed mean (surplus value?), but no I wouldn't accept 30 million in surplus value if he was worth 40 million in surplus value.
 
Oh close to being traded. He’s controllable cheap next year to and has been very good this year. We’d be crazy to not go for him hard.
 
Ozzie's Chainz said:
If we could get Brach and Gsellman it would be nice depending on price and someone posted the Mets were among the teams scouting our lower minors last night. I have no idea where to go for a lefty, Diekman is trash.
Click to expand...

I forgot about Loup. Ziegler is also out there, he looks and throws like he's 100 years old so he can't cost much.

We could shorten the game when Viz returns.

6th inning: Minter
7th inning: Ziegler
8th inning: Loup
9th inning: Viz

In some order leading up to Viz depending on matchups not to mention all of them have some closing experience. Some other names on my radar are Blevins (desperation) and Gsellman from the Mets and also Rodney for a 7th or 8th inning role, maybe Chuck could fix Conley if we get him from Miami. Get creative, AA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top