MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

[gwtayl]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Can you tell us what the Nats' rotation looks like now--and how long everyone is still on contract for? That'll help.

[Sgexpat]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that he wouldn't/shouldn't necessarily go "cheap" because of current performance if he has ratings that would seem to point to a probable bounce back.

Yet this does happen all the time. I think the reason is significant periods of underperformance may be indicative that underlying skills are diminishing (or have already diminished).

That said, I do agree with the thrust of your remark, that a player performing below their true skill level can be expected to improve (and vice versa). In other words 'regression to the mean'.

When it comes to trades and contracts it appears to me the game itself only values traits (and for the CPU-franchise some contextual issues such as budget, for CPU-player contracts their expectations etc) and does not look at recent performance, even if that is months or even an entire season of seriously degraded performance. IRL this seriously degraded performance may result in a sell-low / buy-low situation where the team holding that player wants to move him on and a buyer wants to bet on that player recapturing his past glory. And for the player, if a FA, less interest and potentially more willingness to sign a one year 'prove it' deal in the hopes of re-establishing a high level of performance to cash in heavily.

I'm not sure what the balance should be in valuing traits (or, IRL, a reasonable multi year baseline of demonstrated performance that can be expected to continue) vs recent performance. I'm guessing 60:40 wouldn't be unreasonable, but that could be more like 30:70 for older players where the decline may well be due to physical degradation. So, for older players when we talk about their trade value in this thread I would actually recommend if we are aiming for some level of realism that we do indeed look quite heavily at their recent performance (which I think everyone is pretty much doing!). Noting how aggressive the regression mechanics can be on older players, this seems like a reasonable position to take from a game perspective as well.

I'm sure there are some good fangraphs articles on baseline performance vs recency bias and how much to care about extended slumps in valuing players, but I suppose that will be research for another day...

[KBLover]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Yet this does happen all the time. I think the reason is significant periods of underperformance may be indicative that underlying skills are diminishing (or have already diminished).

Yeah, irl there's no bars on their heads telling you that he has his skills still

And I do give a nod to this possibility as well (the paragraph above the one you quoted).

I just don't think it should be a universal thing. Depends on his trajectory (progression and recent performances and age) as much as anything else.

[Archanine]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

what would it take to get andrew miller to the indians ? fraizer, meija, bradley, aiken arent going anywhere in the deal.

[Sgexpat]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

what would it take to get andrew miller to the indians ? fraizer, meija, bradley, aiken arent going anywhere in the deal.

How are the yankees doing in your franchise?

IRL I would think a decent starting pitching prospect with all their years of control ahead (Plutko or Clevinger) + 1 solid prospect (Meija or Bradley) would do it. I can't imagine a league-wide top 50 prospect type guy like Zimmer or Frazier changing hads for Miller, as great as he is.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

what would it take to get andrew miller to the indians ? fraizer, meija, bradley, aiken arent going anywhere in the deal.

If you're adding in all of those restrictions, I highly doubt you have the pieces to get Miller. CLE has some good prospects, but maybe Frazier is the only headliner that would work for Miller. I'm not sure if some combination of Zimmer + Kaminsky/Sheffield/Clevinger + lottery ticket is enough.

[Sgexpat]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

If you're adding in all of those restrictions, I highly doubt you have the pieces to get Miller. CLE has some good prospects, but maybe Frazier is the only headliner that would work for Miller. I'm not sure if some combination of Zimmer + Kaminsky/Sheffield/Clevinger + lottery ticket is enough.

I follow the tribe pretty closely. There is no way they would trade Frazier (or likely Zimmer who is clearly the lesser of the two) for a 31 year old reliever, no matter how good he is. But I do agree with the thrust of your post here that restricting out guys like Meija and Bradley is impossible, ANY of the non Frazier / non Zimmer prospects have to be on the table to get Miller and even then, there might not be a fit with the Yankees.

Since there is at least a plausible chance the Tribe are talking to the Yankees IRL about this it will be interesting to see if something happens - we can then find out how the respective FO's viewed it.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

How are the yankees doing in your franchise?

IRL I would think a decent starting pitching prospect with all their years of control ahead (Plutko or Clevinger) + 1 solid prospect (Meija or Bradley) would do it. I can't imagine a league-wide top 50 prospect type guy like Zimmer or Frazier changing hads for Miller, as great as he is.

We have no idea what his stats are because there wasn't really any info given in the original post, but I think you've underpriced the market for Miller. We've already seen a Top 10-15 prospect change hands for Drew Pomeranz. A 2 WAR reliever with a couple of years left on his deal will not be cheap.

[Sgexpat]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

We have no idea what his stats are because there wasn't really any info given in the original post, but I think you've underpriced the market for Miller. We've already seen a Top 10-15 prospect change hands for Drew Pomeranz. A 2 WAR reliever with a couple of years left on his deal will not be cheap.

You may indeed be right; I think the problem is the 2nd tier of the Indians prospects are not exciting enough to get it done - not that Miller is going to be 'worth' a Frazier-level prospect in trade. Trading a guy like Frazier (or even Zimmer, but he's closer to a realistic guy to trade given some of his limitations coming through this year) would be a very, very short-sighted and poor decision by a FO with a super-limited budget.

Basically, I think they will struggle to find a match here, and *definitely* won't if a team on unlimited budget is willing to part with a top prospect for Miller (Tribe would get priced out).

[Bard]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Eduardo Rodriguez was dealt for two months of Andrew Miller. Now Miller had a pretty decent contract, and is still dang good.

[redsox4evur]

MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

If you're adding in all of those restrictions, I highly doubt you have the pieces to get Miller. CLE has some good prospects, but maybe Frazier is the only headliner that would work for Miller. I'm not sure if some combination of Zimmer + Kaminsky/Sheffield/Clevinger + lottery ticket is enough.

Yea I agree that a deal doesn't happen with those restrictions. And let's use the Kimbrel deal as a comparison. He got the Padres the #39 and #49 prospects in Manuel Margot and Guerra. And that was coming off a down year for Kimbrel. As noted by the freaking Drew Pomeranz deal, we are in a seller's market. The price is probably going to be around Frazier. Hell some fans are something like Torres/Soler+ from the Cubs in another thread. So you are talking about Frazier/Zimmer+. MLB.com has Torres as the Cubs top prospect. And Baseball America has Torres and Happ as a 1a and 1b respectively in their midseason update. So all in all you have to include AT LEAST 1 of Frazier/Zimmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sgexpat]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Yea I agree that a deal doesn't happen with those restrictions. And let's use the Kimbrel deal as a comparison. He got the Padres the #39 and #49 prospects in Manuel Margot and Guerra. And that was coming off a down year for Kimbrel. As noted by the freaking Drew Pomeranz deal, we are in a seller's market. The price is probably going to be around Frazier. Hell some fans are something like Torres/Soler+ from the Cubs in another thread. So you are talking about Frazier/Zimmer+. MLB.com has Torres as the Cubs top prospect. And Baseball America has Torres and Happ as a 1a and 1b respectively in their midseason update. So all in all you have to include AT LEAST 1 of Frazier/Zimmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In terms of context, if the market is at that level (and maybe it is), CLE still won't do it. They need cost controlled guys to come up from the minors to even field 25 players with their budget.

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

In terms of context, if the market is at that level (and maybe it is), CLE still won't do it. They need cost controlled guys to come up from the minors to even field 25 players with their budget.

Then you can't get elite level players through trade

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Yea I think CLE does something IRL for Miller. When was the last time they won (if ever). It's been over 50 years. Any time you have a chance to win (with that long of a losing streak) you NEED to take a shot and do it. Also Miller's contract isn't going to hamstring anybody. He is making 9 million, which is nothing in a day and age where Rick Porcelblo is making $20 million.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sgexpat]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Yea I think CLE does something IRL for Miller. When was the last time they won (if ever). It's been over 50 years. Any time you have a chance to win (with that long of a losing streak) you NEED to take a shot and do it. Also Miller's contract isn't going to hamstring anybody. He is making 9 million, which is nothing in a day and age where Rick Porcelblo is making $20 million.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not his contract that's the issue - its giving up 6 years of team control over a [possible-to-probable] quality OF in Frazier (their OF and minors depth in OF is pretty thin after Frazier/Zimmer...)