MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

[Tmizzle]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Yeah with Berrios

Espinoza was #15 in baseball and #4 in their system. Berrios is #16 so it is pretty close and in my farm system he is my #2. It is a pretty close comparison but Pomeranz isn't having the year he is in real life so his value will not be as high.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

i wouldnt call dombrowski a smart GM either. he's good at putting together a win now team but hes also good at throwing away high value assets and not winning the big prize leaving teams futures in question

I will say that trading for Miguel Cabrera pretty much makes his whole career, but he's definitely become a win-now GM and I can't blame him after stints in Montreal and Miami earlier in his career. It's not his $$$.

However, this is buying at the absolute zenith of Drew Pomeranz. BABIP, HR/FB%, LOB%, pitching at Petco...heck every single metric says Pomeranz has been just as lucky as he's been good this season. That's how you have a 2.47 ERA with a 3.66 xFIP. And now he's going to a hitter's league and a hitter's park on top of that (good luck against Baltimore and Toronto, lol). On top of that, he has no track record whatsoever of being a full season starting pitcher. He's never topped 150 innings in any professional season even if you combine all the levels he was at.

Yeah you get 2.5 years of him and yeah when Boston has a good team like this year, there is extra incentive to do it, but I wouldn't have dealt Espinoza for this type of short track record. Given the price and the risk, I think Preller had Dombrowski over a barrel here.

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Espinoza was #15 in baseball and #4 in their system. Berrios is #16 so it is pretty close and in my farm system he is my #2. It is a pretty close comparison but Pomeranz isn't having the year he is in real life so his value will not be as high.

They were talking Law's ranks and he has Berrios #24 not #16 but surplus value wise they are in the same range (pitcher ranked #11-25)

If he isnt pitching as well (Pomeranz) maybe drop down to Kohl Stewart but you probably need to add a second piece that is semi-interesting

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I will say that trading for Miguel Cabrera pretty much makes his whole career, but he's definitely become a win-now GM and I can't blame him after stints in Montreal and Miami earlier in his career. It's not his $$$.

However, this is buying at the absolute zenith of Drew Pomeranz. BABIP, HR/FB%, LOB%, pitching at Petco...heck every single metric says Pomeranz has been just as lucky as he's been good this season. That's how you have a 2.47 ERA with a 3.66 xFIP. And now he's going to a hitter's league and a hitter's park on top of that (good luck against Baltimore and Toronto, lol). On top of that, he has no track record whatsoever of being a full season starting pitcher. He's never topped 150 innings in any professional season even if you combine all the levels he was at.

Yeah you get 2.5 years of him and yeah when Boston has a good team like this year, there is extra incentive to do it, but I wouldn't have dealt Espinoza for this type of short track record. Given the price and the risk, I think Preller had Dombrowski over a barrel here.

I think this is a perfect supply and demand example. Not much viable on the market so prices go up. Pomeranz is pretty dang good though and 2.5 years of control is substantial

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I'm missing something because the analogy isn't clicking for me.

25 cents = 25 cents is what my brain keeps seeing.

There's hidden synergy (and some additional risk) in consolidating value into fewer roster spots. For example, would you prefer Mike Trout and his 10 WAR or would you trade him for two 4 WAR guys and a 2 WAR guy? Most would prefer the 10 WAR guy in a single roster spot, because you can try to go out and find additional value to add into those other 2 roster spots. With prospects, you'd always rather have the guy most likely to become the next Mike Schmidt than 2 guys that comp to Chase Headley and one Chris Sabo. That's the basic value in a quarter over 2 dimes and a nickel as I put it before. Although Mike Schmidt is more like a $100 bill...lol

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Yeah you get 2.5 years of him and yeah when Boston has a good team like this year, there is extra incentive to do it, but I wouldn't have dealt Espinoza for this type of short track record. Given the price and the risk, I think Preller had Dombrowski over a barrel here.

I agree as I said on Twitter earlier. If you're gonna move Espinoza fine, no problem with that. Just do it in a package for a freaking ace like Fernandez, Cole, Sale. Not Drew Pomeranz. I don't trust any guy coming out of Petco. Look at Jake Peavy. He was a freaking stud in San Diego. Won a Cy Young in the late 2000s (09, maybe). Won the pitching triple crown that year I think. But how has he been since then? Nowhere near that level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

I think this is a perfect supply and demand example. Not much viable on the market so prices go up. Pomeranz is pretty dang good though and 2.5 years of control is substantial

Sure but given the risk of Pomeranz vs the risk of Espinoza still in A ball, I would still value 6 years of Espinoza >> 2.5 years of Pomeranz. I am bullish on Espinoza though.

One thing that you've brought up (as I did also in a previous post) is that we don't know the supply/demand aspect of the market. We can sort of guess that it's a seller's market and if there's nothing but trash available with a bunch of buyers, well maybe the Red Sox couldn't help but pay a premium.

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Sure but given the risk of Pomeranz vs the risk of Espinoza still in A ball, I would still value 6 years of Espinoza >> 2.5 years of Pomeranz. I am bullish on Espinoza though.

One thing that you've brought up (as I did also in a previous post) is that we don't know the supply/demand aspect of the market. We can sort of guess that it's a seller's market and if there's nothing but trash available with a bunch of buyers, well maybe the Red Sox couldn't help but pay a premium.

I'm with you that Espinoza is a highly touted guy. And could live up to the potential. Pedro loves him. And the comparisons are there between him and Pedro. So I'm biased as well. I hate trading that for this type of player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Also, Shelby Miller was optioned to AAA today. Can we stop having people bring up that trade as something that can be used as a legitimate comparison? Nobody deals Inciarte + Swanson + Blair for a guy that they have to send down to AAA. Yes, dumb GMs make dumb trades. Yes, Dave Stewart is not a good GM. It's Dave Stewart-type of deals that this thread is trying to avoid signing off on, lol. Dave Stewart is not "realistic."

[Bard]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Dave Stewart is like the AI logic in game.

[NothingTrivial]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Dave Stewart is like the AI logic in game.

Might be where they get the logic. Dave might be moonlighting for his next job.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

And boom goes the dynamite....

I'm telling you guys. These highly regarded prospects get traded for less than you think, especially when in win now mode.

According to Keith Law, the 14th prospect in the game just got traded for Drew Pomeranz. A pitcher who has never thrown more than 180 innings in a season and has no track record of success. Dombrowksi is not some idiot GM either.

How many of you all actually play into year 4-5 of your franchise and see these A prospects from OSFM become super stars...if they even pan out. It's just like in real life, in 4-5 years your @$$ could be fired (in game terms you restart or lose interest). You have to make moves to win now.

Dave Stewart is still an idiot....

http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/...dated-edition/

Check this out. Theres a big difference in the bust rate of upper end hitters and pitchers. For example a hitter ranked say #40 has approximately the same amount of surplus value as the #15 ranked pitcher.

This is the disconnect on the Gallo/Espinoza thing. But yeah prospect do get over valued somewhat here and in real life.

[KBLover]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

There's hidden synergy (and some additional risk) in consolidating value into fewer roster spots. For example, would you prefer Mike Trout and his 10 WAR or would you trade him for two 4 WAR guys and a 2 WAR guy? Most would prefer the 10 WAR guy in a single roster spot, because you can try to go out and find additional value to add into those other 2 roster spots. With prospects, you'd always rather have the guy most likely to become the next Mike Schmidt than 2 guys that comp to Chase Headley and one Chris Sabo. That's the basic value in a quarter over 2 dimes and a nickel as I put it before. Although Mike Schmidt is more like a $100 bill...lol

I see. That makes sense. Of course, if I had the "quarter" why would I ever deal for the 2 dimes and a nickle unless I was rebuilding? Even then, I'd rather have the prospect that could become a quarter himself. The benefit to the team receiving the current quarter would be a time premium/value.

It would seem to never make sense to deal for a "sum of the parts" package unless one of those parts could fill an existing need in return for dealing from an area of strength/depth.

So I can see why the other team didn't lead the BoSox deal the smaller coins, so to speak. I wouldn't take them either.

[KBLover]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

Dave Stewart is not "realistic."

Well, as you said, truth is stranger than fiction.

Of course, this is why I don't get flustered over CPU trades in the game. When real GMs who supposedly "know better" and get paid big bucks to do so stop making trades that a limited computer algorithm dealing with a system that's also limited (by design or otherwise) might not take, then maybe I'll get flustered over it.

Of course, OOTP17 spends it's waking moments thinking I'm a fool in trades so maybe not lol.

[KBLover]

Re: MLB 16 Trade Discussion Thread

How many of you all actually play into year 4-5 of your franchise and see these A prospects from OSFM become super stars...if they even pan out.

*raises hand as he loads his year 8 carryover*