MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

[babybombers]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

I'm not sure on the value of Abreu but consistent .290 25hr/100rbi guy and Blue Jays are a much better team if they could acquire a 1B and put pearce in left field with carrera/smoak/barney/salty on the bench so how does this sound
To Jays:
Abreu

To Sox:
Reid-Foley
Alford
Bichette

I think you have over valued Abreu where he has really only been a 1.5-2 WAR player. I would say you could get Reid Foley or Alford not enough value for both

[loaf31]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

Starting my Pirates franchise on Sunday.

What is/are some realistic deals for shopping McCutchen

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Operation Sports mobile app

[rstev43]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

Hey all. Another "New here, not to the game" guy.

Working on a Twins franchise. I want to retain Dozier (even after 2018), Sano, Buxton, Berrios, and Park (I believe in him) as my cornerstones. Everyone else is made available. I'm looking at pitching first. Where do you think is a good place to start?

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

So one more question in valuing trades then after these calculations. How do you end up comparing guys in trades? I made two calculations, one based on Kyle Seager and another based on Giancarlo Stanton. We calculated Seager as $103 Surplus, and when I calculated a rough Stanton value, I got -$10M (11 years, $275M). The calculation money might be off, but that doesn't really matter. How then do you come up with a trade between the two. According to that, Seager has excess value, but Stanton is worth more. Do you base it off total WAR?

Basically, in a hypothetical trade involving Seager and Stanton, how do you determine who owes more pieces and what would their value need to be? I'm comparing this to a trade I did in my franchise awhile back, and trying to figure out who came out ahead. I thought it was fair, but want to check it with your formula.

Assuming the numbers are right, Seager has far more surplus value, but is a less valuable player. This just means money matters. Its why Kris Bryant probably has more value than Trout right now, but we would all agree Trout is the best player in the world. Or another example, Freddie Freeman and Anthony Rizzo are two of the best 1B in the NL. They're around the same talent levels, but Rizzo is worth far more because he is only owed $54 million over the next 5 years where Freeman is owed $103 million over the next 5 years.

[Buccosback]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

Starting my Pirates franchise on Sunday.

What is/are some realistic deals for shopping McCutchen

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Operation Sports mobile app

personally i wouldn't trade mccutchen. you can sign him in the offseason for about 10-11M/yr and he does well in the simulation. Idk what you would want to do with Meadows then but I think it's best to keep the dream outfield together for at least another 5-6 years. I would keep Meadows as my 4th outfielder and then potentially trade him for a rotation/second base upgrade.

I would look maybe at the injuries in july and how each team is in the standings. Its important to get a large return for him of at least two A almost mlb ready prospects

[cblaum]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

Just curious on value for JD Martinez.

Looking to add position prospects, preferably in middle IF, 1B, or LF/RF

[babybombers]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

I really want Carassco.

Indians get Jake Lamb, Chance Adams, Abreu

D Backs get Didi, Fowler, Andujar, Fowler, Ellsbury, Green

Yankees get Carassco and Greinke

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

I really want Carassco.

Indians get Jake Lamb, Chance Adams, Abreu

D Backs get Didi, Fowler, Andujar, Fowler, Ellsbury, Green

Yankees get Carassco and Greinke

You have to give up on the three way trades. They just aren't making sense. Unless you want to start offering better prospects you can't get Carrasco The DBacks gave away Didi and they have Owings, Ahmed and Marte at SS. Ellsbury has negative value. You get to keep your best prospects and add that much pitching talent.

Look at it this way, would you give up Carrasco for Jake Lamb, Chance Adams and Abreu? Why should the Indians give up a top end pitcher who is only owed around $20 million for the next 4 years total for that little of a package. Carrasco would require like 90% of the Chris Sale trade, not a mediocre package like that.

[babybombers]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

You have to stop with the three way trades. They just aren't making sense. Unless you want to start offering better prospects you can't get Carrasco The DBacks gave away Didi and they have Owings, Ahmed and Marte at SS. Ellsbury has negative value. You get to keep your best prospects and add that much pitching talent.

Look at it this way, would you give up Carrasco for Jake Lamb, Chance Adams and Abreu? Why should the Indians give up a top end pitcher who is only owed around $20 million for the next 4 years total for that little of a package. Carrasco would require like 90% of the Chris Sale trade, not a mediocre package like that.

Going by WAR Lamb is slightly worse than Carassco and Lamb has more team control than Carassco. I was going to see if I added Rutherford to the Dbacks if that would help but you have Carassco head and shoulders above Lamb.

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

Going by WAR Lamb is slightly worse than Carassco and Lamb has more team control than Carassco. I was going to see if I added Rutherford to the Dbacks if that would help but you have Carassco head and shoulders above Lamb.

They both have 5 years of team control left. If you were given the options of having 5 years of a position player who has peaked at 2.5 fWAR or 5 years of a pitcher who has peaked at 4.8 fWAR which would you pick? How about adding in that the pitcher will probably only cost $15 million more total?

If you can give me a real reason why the Diamondbacks make this trade and a reason why the AL Champion Indians give up their #2 pitcher for that offer besides "I really want Carrasco" I will be willing to listen

[babybombers]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

They both have 5 years of team control left. If you were given the options of having 5 years of a position player who has peaked at 2.5 fWAR or 5 years of a pitcher who has peaked at 4.8 fWAR which would you pick? How about adding in that the pitcher will probably only cost $15 million more total?

If you can give me a real reason why the Diamondbacks make this trade and a reason why the AL Champion Indians give up their #2 pitcher for that offer besides "I really want Carrasco" I will be willing to listen

What is your prediction on Didis next two years in arbitration will bring?

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

What is your prediction on Didis next two years in arbitration will bring?

Probably something like $8 million and $10 or $11 million. But it doesn't really matter. The DBacks traded Didi away. They also have 3 viable options at SS that wouldn't require them trading anyone else away. And I won't insult anyone's intelligence by saying why the Indians wouldn't have a want/need for Didi

[hampshirestags]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

This. Understanding the surplus value calculation is important in terms of making trades that line up value wise, but context is relevant as well. Take the Trout trades that were discussed earlier in the thread. Trout projects as a 10 WAR player for the next 4 years of his contract. I as the Blue Jays can easily give up 2 players that project for 5 WAR a piece and say mathematically I've made a fair trade, but that's just not the way trades work. There's tons of other contextual situations; when teams want production is the most pervasive. The Cubs want production right now, the Twins might want it 3 or 4 years down the road. It's projectability.

In almost all circumstances though, a team is going to look at a trade with projections and context in equal measure. Even if you added pieces, the Astros aren't going to want to deal McCullers, nor the Indians Carrasco. Neither team is going to be incentivized by Tanaka, who as we've discussed has limited trade value. I'm not saying he sucks at baseball, but he has an opt-out and a wonky elbow. Those two things severely impede your ability to move him, especially for young, controllable pieces that may actually outproduce him this year.

The most common type of trade in baseball is the established player for prospect swap. If you were looking to move Tanaka, look for a team with prospects and a chance of competing this year. They will give you prospects for Tanaka. There is almost no circumstance where dealing him is going to get you back a comparable player right now. There isn't really much backing the idea that a team would trade you an ace with more team control for an ace with elbow problems and a contract they can sever next season.

To piggyback off this, don't forget that while WAR and fWAR are good/easy indicators of value, most trades (and FA contracts) are made with it and "comps". If you're looking for blockbuster deals, which most of us are, it helps to look back and compare relevant trades of the past. Though comps fluctuate (see: elite closer trades the past 2 years), basing a deal strictly off numbers will most always leave one team losing.

Side note... I was pretty active in this thread 2 years ago (reluctantly skipped last year due to life) and there was a fabulous spreadsheet organized by a Red Sox fan from Sweden (?)...whatever happened to that?

[GamecocksLaw17]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

To piggyback off this, don't forget that while WAR and fWAR are good/easy indicators of value, most trades (and FA contracts) are made with it and "comps". If you're looking for blockbuster deals, which most of us are, it helps to look back and compare relevant trades of the past. Though comps fluctuate (see: elite closer trades the past 2 years), basing a deal strictly off numbers will most always leave one team losing.

Side note... I was pretty active in this thread 2 years ago (reluctantly skipped last year due to life) and there was a fabulous spreadsheet organized by a Red Sox fan from Sweden (?)...whatever happened to that?

We never got it updated. It ended up being an insane amount of work. AC tried to get a group of us together to make it happen, but it just never got off the ground.

Also, you made an excellent point with a few caveats which you partially mentioned. Another would be not to use the Shelby Miller deal as a comp.

[hampshirestags]

Re: MLB 17 Trade Discussion Thread

We never got it updated. It ended up being an insane amount of work. AC tried to get a group of us together to make it happen, but it just never got off the ground.

Also, you made an excellent point with a few caveats which you partially mentioned. Another would be not to use the Shelby Miller deal as a comp.

Or Adam Eaton and when Detroit traded with the Rays for Price, otherwise, the league has been fairly consistent.

Darn, I really liked that spreadsheet (and AC for that matter), guess I'll have to think for myself this year. Looking forward to some legit rosters tomorrow night and watching this thread explode in the upcoming weeks!