2019 Trade Deadline Thread:

I don't claim much knowledge on the subject, but the calculation of fair value for controlled relievers seems like it's missing an input that considers the overall volatility of relievers. It's difficult to understand how anyone who plays so little, and has such a high chance of failure due to the nature of their role, can hold much long term value.

Have smart teams paid any of these high value prices for controlled relievers lately, or was it only teams who are less advanced in their decision making?
 
Jeff Passan of ESPN reports that the Mets "have been open" to trading Edwin Diaz.
However, Passan indicates that a deal is unlikely unless the Mets lower their demands, with one executive telling him that the club is "asking for more than they gave up for him." That would be a tough sell considering that Diaz would come with less control this time around and his performance has declined sharply since last season. Diaz is under team control through 2022.

SOURCE: ESPN.com
Jul 24, 2019, 1:38 PM ET
 
Jaw said:
I don't claim much knowledge on the subject, but the calculation of fair value for controlled relievers seems like it's missing an input that considers the overall volatility of relievers. It's difficult to understand how anyone who plays so little, and has such a high chance of failure due to the nature of their role, can hold much long term value.

Have smart teams paid any of these high value prices for controlled relievers lately, or was it only teams who are less advanced in their decision making?
Click to expand...

What we have seen with contracts of 3+ years for BP arms is either dumb teams, or teams with so many resources they can waste $10M+ per year on a fizzled BP arm and not blink. We have also seen teams like the Indians and Cubs dump significant prospect resources into BP arms because their model weighs the value of elite BP arms in the postseason extremely heavily.

I think there are some BP arms who are some combination of young enough, good enough, and consistent enough that they can warrant a larger commitment. Vazquez is certainly bordering on being that type of guy, and Waters/Muller is completely within the realm of reason in terms of value (arbitrarily boosting Muller's value to that of a FV 50 guy "just because" isn't really a justifiable argument tactic).

Having said that, we've seen the Braves win without a killer BP. We hope to see AA make value adds at the deadline to bolster the BP. We've seen the Braves largely fail at making their own BP studs. I probably wouldn't give up Waters for Vazquez, but I would probably give up Wright for him.

AA is now in the hardest place to be for a FO. Selling off assets at the beginning of a rebuild is easy. Dumping resources in win-now moves is easy. Walking that line trying to balance present wins with future wins is very hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Jaw said:
I don't claim much knowledge on the subject, but the calculation of fair value for controlled relievers seems like it's missing an input that considers the overall volatility of relievers. It's difficult to understand how anyone who plays so little, and has such a high chance of failure due to the nature of their role, can hold much long term value.

Have smart teams paid any of these high value prices for controlled relievers lately, or was it only teams who are less advanced in their decision making?
Click to expand...

The BoSox paid over 60 million in surplus value for Kimbrel. Brad Hand trade is a little tricky since Cleveland got back both Brad Hand and Adam Cimber, who while not well known, was a rookie reliever having a terrific season with 6 years of control. It's hard to put a good value on Cimber. Still, Cleveland gave up 50+ million in FV in that trade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Carp said:
The BoSox paid over 60 million in surplus value for Kimbrel. Brad Hand trade is a little tricky since Cleveland got back both Brad Hand and Adam Cimber, who while not well known, was a rookie reliever having a terrific season with 6 years of control. It's hard to put a good value on Cimber. Still, Cleveland gave up 50+ million in FV in that trade.
Click to expand...

Vaquez is more productive than Hand and under a better contract.
 
Enscheff said:
What we have seen with contracts of 3+ years for BP arms is either dumb teams, or teams with so many resources they can waste $10M+ per year on a fizzled BP arm and not blink. We have also seen teams like the Indians and Cubs dump significant prospect resources into BP arms because their model weighs the value of elite BP arms in the postseason extremely heavily.

I think there are some BP arms who are some combination of young enough, good enough, and consistent enough that they can warrant a larger commitment. Vazquez is certainly bordering on being that type of guy, and Waters/Muller is completely within the realm of reason in terms of value (arbitrarily boosting Muller's value to that of a FV 50 guy "just because" isn't really a justifiable argument tactic).
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet Muller is a 50 FV when the latest fangraphs list comes out.
 
nsacpi said:
Vaquez is more productive than Hand and under a better contract.
Click to expand...

Wasn't commenting on that. Just listing the 2 most recent trades I could think of where a smart team spent a significant amount on closer with several years of control.

Sean Doolittle is another one.
 
Carp said:
I'd be willing to bet Muller is a 50 FV when the latest fangraphs list comes out.
Click to expand...

There is no "latest list", it is updated almost daily now. What you are seeing is the "latest list". The "latest list" was changed to move Waters up to the high end of the 55s, and Gohara down.

Players are valuated now for trades that happen now. If Muller is a 50 in 6 months, he will be more valuable 6 months from now. Whether Muller moves up to a 50, or gets hurt and falls down the list, his value now is what it is now.

Now.
 
Enscheff said:
Having said that, we've seen the Braves win without a killer BP. We hope to see AA make value adds at the deadline to bolster the BP. We've seen the Braves largely fail at making their own BP studs. I probably wouldn't give up Waters for Vazquez, but I would probably give up Wright for him.

AA is now in the hardest place to be for a FO. Selling off assets at the beginning of a rebuild is easy. Dumping resources in win-now moves is easy. Walking that line trying to balance present wins with future wins is very hard.
Click to expand...

Agree on giving up Wright over Waters. Your last point is also true, he needs to make the right moves and not the flashy ones that shorten our window of contention.

Especially since like every team he calls to trade with WILL ask for Waters, Pache and Anderson.
 
Heyward said:
Agree on giving up Wright over Waters. Your last point is also true, he needs to make the right moves and not the flashy ones that shorten our window of contention.

Especially since like every team he calls to trade with WILL ask for Waters, Pache and Anderson.
Click to expand...

His job if that is the ask is to say no.



If teams for whatever reason price the Braves out of the higher end of the trade market because they are asking the Braves more than they ask other teams, the Braves simply should not shop in that side of the market until that changes and should limit themselves to adding at the margins.
 
I don't trade Waters or Pache unless it's for a long term answer in the OF. I don't trade Anderson unless it's for a TOR starter. I don't envision any of that happening, so those 3 should be untouchable.
 
If Anderson is available in a trade then AA may have a big move up his sleeve. Anderson’s value is pretty high right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top