4/15 Games

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

What is your answer when Robert, Basabe, Adolfo, Gonzalez and Rutherford are all in BIrmingham together? 

Yeah, I don't have an exact answer to this.

I think there best bet is Basabe goes to AAA following his activation - he didn't dominate AA, but he showed progress towards the end of the season and tools wise he's probably ready. 

I would guess they were hoping Gonzalez can get it going - he would be their best bet - and they can move him up quickly as he has the age, and production at the lower levels to warrant it. He needs to start showing progress though. If he has a nice next 6 weeks I could see him getting promoted. Otherwise they DH one of the OF'ers everyday. 

[Sox Fan In Husker Land]

25 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No one is hitting .351 at any minor league level by finding small holes in an A-Ball infield. He has a .844 OPS, and 3 XBH's in 13 hits and is slugging .459 after a dreadful start. Madrigal has been very good, and trying to say the guy is slapping the ball around the infield and that's the only way he gets hits is a bit of a stretch.

I know it is a small sample size, but again his LD% is at 25.7% currently. The notion that all he does is have weak contact hits is complete bullshit spewed by people who don't like his profile, or that the Sox took him at #4 in the draft.

[thxfrthmmrs]

36 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

What? I'm not sure what this means. 

Prospect growth and development isn't linear, and Rutherford was slightly overrated based on production vs younger competition in high school. That said, they got a top 100 prospect for a relief pitcher who has had one good year. They got about as much for Kahnle as you could expect, and as I noted Frazier and Robertson provided zero surplus value so you weren't getting anything but an organization filler for them.

So did the yankees overpay then? According to you Frazier and Robertson are worthless (which isn't true, before the trade, most on this board thought they could at least get a B level prospect for Robertson alone), and Kahnle's value at the time was whatever he gave them, which is a 0 WAR worthless pitcher. But they actually gave us a Top 100 prospect for it? Sounds like a fleece to me.

[GreenSox]

8 minutes ago, Sox Fan In Husker Land said:

I know it is a small sample size, but again his LD% is at 25.7% currently. The notion that all he does is have weak contact hits is complete bullshit spewed by people who don't like his profile, or that the Sox took him at #4 in the draft.

Or they are just trying to analyze a prospect and look at strengths and weaknesses.

Speaking for myself, I neither disliked him as a #4 pick nor as a prospect.

Edited April 16, 2019 by GreenSox

[DirtySox]

[thxfrthmmrs]

2 hours ago, bmags said:

And people will claim this is revisionist but many pointed it out at the time. Rutherford had developed no power, and seemed to be a classic case of older high school prospect who may have been overrated due to a more mature body.

That said with the exception of Florial the yankee prospects that were traded out that summer have busted, though one largely because of the white sox power box.

What was that fake ken rosenthal deal? Florial, Mateo, Adams? I was through the moon for that.

Cashman man. If he's trading you a prospect that prospect probably sucks. 

I, along with a few others, Shack, IIRC was disappointed by the return at the time for a couple of reasons - 1) expectation were high for a return since it was less than a week after the Q trade 2) value for premium relievers was at all time high after the Chapman trade and Andrew Miller success from prior years, even though Kahnle lacked the track record 3) red flags on Blake and his results in pro ball. Some outlets, I think KLaw had him off top 100 altogether.

Those who were optimistic at the time feel like he could eventually develop into a plus hit and above average power tool, and get back into the top 100 or 50 conversation, which hasn't happened.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

16 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

So did the yankees overpay then? According to you Frazier and Robertson are worthless (which isn't true, before the trade, most on this board thought they could at least get a B level prospect for Robertson alone), and Kahnle's value at the time was whatever he gave them, which is a 0 WAR worthless pitcher. But they actually gave us a Top 100 prospect for it? Sounds like a fleece to me.

 

 

Trades are valued by surplus value - every team has their own calculation I'm sure - and by no account was Robertson worth much more than his salary. People seem to really be overvaluing Kahnle - he had one year in his entire career with a FIP under 4.00 when he was traded to the Yankees. Robertson and his limited value + Kahnle and his limited success = one top 100 prospect. Expecting more just doesn't make sense. Take into account the fact that Frazier had no value - possibly negative value - and you get Rutherford.

And no offense, but I don't care what Sox fans on a message board think their players are worth. A B-Level prospect - what are you valuing that as? 40FV? That's worth about 8 million; Robertson didn't have 8 million in Surplus Value. In fact, no where near it. 

It was a fair trade because Kahnle clearly had a ceiling - he was in the middle of a career year and his FIP was under 2 - and Robertson is a good MLB reliever but Robertson was paid accordingly. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Chicago White Sox]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

 

 

Trades are valued by surplus value - every team has their own calculation I'm sure - and by no account was Robertson worth much more than his salary. People seem to really be overvaluing Kahnle - he had one year in his entire career with a FIP under 4.00 when he was traded to the Yankees. Robertson and his limited value + Kahnle and his limited success = one top 100 prospect. Expecting more just doesn't make sense. Take into account the fact that Frazier had no value - possibly negative value - and you get Rutherford.

And no offense, but I don't care what Sox fans on a message board think their players are worth. A B-Level prospect - what are you valuing that as? 40FV? That's worth about 8 million; Robertson didn't have 8 million in Surplus Value. In fact, no where near it. 

It was a fair trade because Kahnle clearly had a ceiling - he was in the middle of a career year and his FIP was under 2 - and Robertson is a good MLB reliever but Robertson was paid accordingly. 

Trades at the deadline are not entirely based on surplus value and saying otherwise is flawed or disengenous.

[Sox Fan In Husker Land]

2 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

So did the yankees overpay then? According to you Frazier and Robertson are worthless (which isn't true, before the trade, most on this board thought they could at least get a B level prospect for Robertson alone), and Kahnle's value at the time was whatever he gave them, which is a 0 WAR worthless pitcher. But they actually gave us a Top 100 prospect for it? Sounds like a fleece to me.

I believe it was a fair trade for both teams.

Frazier and Robertson were not worthless as he stated. They had value. Frazier was a fairly decent rental for 2/3 months for a team that missed the World Series by 1 game. Robertson was at $12.5 mill/year for 2 years for a reliever. There was a fairly limited market that would take on that contract for 2 years, especially for a guy whom most big market teams would use as a set up man, as they had their closers in place. He was also a pretty damn good set up man for the Yankees over the last 2 seasons.

At the time (2017) Rutherford was ranked as a Top 50 prospect. It is true he was falling, and a lot of people had put Florial ahead of him based off of production. He then had a poor season with the Sox to finish 2017.

In Pre-2018 he was a Top 100 prospect per MLB Pipeline (99) & MLB Prospectus (90). He hasn't had power develop yet. Last year was actually a pretty decent year for Rutherford in A+. His AA start has been poor to say the least, but it is only 36 PA.

 

2 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

I, along with a few others, Shack, IIRC was disappointed by the return at the time for a couple of reasons - 1) expectation were high for a return since it was less than a week after the Q trade 2) value for premium relievers was at all time high after the Chapman trade and Andrew Miller success from prior years, even though Kahnle lacked the track record 3) red flags on Blake and his results in pro ball. Some outlets, I think KLaw had him off top 100 altogether.

Those who were optimistic at the time feel like he could eventually develop into a plus hit and above average power tool, and get back into the top 100 or 50 conversation, which hasn't happened.

Fair assessment.

[raBBit]

27 minutes ago, Sox Fan In Husker Land said:

I know it is a small sample size, but again his LD% is at 25.7% currently. The notion that all he does is have weak contact hits is complete bullshit spewed by people who don't like his profile, or that the Sox took him at #4 in the draft.

This is a bit disingenuous. I don't think you're wrong either as there are certainly fans who don't like Madrigal because he has no power or he's short or he's not ceiling, etc. etc.

I said the Sox would take him and wanted the Sox to do so. Madrigal's swing does not look like it did when he ascended to top 5 draft pick status. You can have an appreciation for the player and his game while also fairly pointing out less positive developments. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Trades at the deadline are not entirely based on surplus value and saying otherwise is flawed or disengenous.

They are based on surplus value regardless; the calculation is simply adjusted to give more credence to their present day value than the FV of a prospect.

For example, say they view Robertson as being worth 1 win to the the rest of the way, and they value a win at $9.5 million (no team does, but we'll just use the FA number), and he was owed $5 million the remainder of the season. His present day surplus value to them, is 4.5 million. But if we are saying that the B-Level prospect is worth 8 million, then wouldn't that be a net loss of 3.5 Million? Sure, but the Yankees may depreciate that 8 million FV by 50%, because the wins that B-Level prospect could provide them with is coming from a position of organizational strength, and a win 7 years from now may be worth 13 million, so that 8 million is equal to less than 1 win 6 years from now, bringing the present day value of the 40FV prospect at 4 million so the Yankees calculated their net return to be .5 million. FV is more valuable to bad teams and present value more valuable to good teams. This is how you see some overpayments at trade deadline.

[Sox Fan In Husker Land]

2 minutes ago, raBBit said:

This is a bit disingenuous. I don't think you're wrong either as there are certainly fans who don't like Madrigal because he has no power or he's short or he's not ceiling, etc. etc.

I said the Sox would take him and wanted the Sox to do so. Madrigal's swing does not look like it did when he ascended to top 5 draft pick status. You can have an appreciation for the player and his game while also fairly pointing out less positive developments. 

Agree. It was more directed at the people who just simply don't like Madrigal for the reasons you stated. I appreciate the actual responses, like yours, with valid claims and concerns.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, raBBit said:

This is a bit disingenuous. I don't think you're wrong either as there are certainly fans who don't like Madrigal because he has no power or he's short or he's not ceiling, etc. etc.

I said the Sox would take him and wanted the Sox to do so. Madrigal's swing does not look like it did when he ascended to top 5 draft pick status. You can have an appreciation for the player and his game while also fairly pointing out less positive developments. 

Can you link me to the differences? I see his swing being the same as it was to start the year with Oregon State last, but different than it was at the end of his college season but that is mainly due to regaining strength in his wrist likely led to a less strong bat path at the end of last year and the start of his pro career.

[thxfrthmmrs]

36 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

 

 

Trades are valued by surplus value - every team has their own calculation I'm sure - and by no account was Robertson worth much more than his salary. People seem to really be overvaluing Kahnle - he had one year in his entire career with a FIP under 4.00 when he was traded to the Yankees. Robertson and his limited value + Kahnle and his limited success = one top 100 prospect. Expecting more just doesn't make sense. Take into account the fact that Frazier had no value - possibly negative value - and you get Rutherford.

And no offense, but I don't care what Sox fans on a message board think their players are worth. A B-Level prospect - what are you valuing that as? 40FV? That's worth about 8 million; Robertson didn't have 8 million in Surplus Value. In fact, no where near it. 

It was a fair trade because Kahnle clearly had a ceiling - he was in the middle of a career year and his FIP was under 2 - and Robertson is a good MLB reliever but Robertson was paid accordingly. 

I think you are discrediting what the Sox gave out. Frazier while was awful in BA still brought his value to the team, which is often overlooked due to his low BA as I mentioned. He had 5 bWAR in his year and half in his time with the Sox and over $15M in salary, pretty good surplus value if you want to use that measurement. While I was and still am realistic that no team was willing to pay a premium for his surplus value, to say that he was worthless is an overblown statement. His time with yankees? 1.6 bWAR on $5M salary.

Robertson meanwhile did not provide much in the means of surplus value, but teams are willing to give up a valuable piece (B or B+ prospects) for a player who could close or pitch in high leverage.

Kahnle had a good run with Sox and shown no signs of slowing down at the time. He could have been more valuable in the off season given 100 innings of track  record of being an effective high leverage option. Also high sight is 20/20, but had he stayed with Sox in 2018, there is good chance he could have continued his success, given he could continue to work with Coop, and pitching in front of Sox crowd is a lot different than Yankees crowd in late game situation. What could have been was a 1.5+ WAR HL, cost controlled, reliever.

Edited April 16, 2019 by thxfrthmmrs

[thxfrthmmrs]

27 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Trades at the deadline are not entirely based on surplus value and saying otherwise is flawed or disengenous.

Agreed with this. One example I would give is a 1.5 WAR closer with playoff experience on a $12 mil contract would be worth than a 1.5 WAR 7th inning RP with no PO experience on the same salary, especially around TDL.

And if I were to consider team needs, I would potentially pay more for a 1.5 WAR closer with 0 surplus value than to pay for a 0.5 WAR reliever with the same surplus value.

Edited April 16, 2019 by thxfrthmmrs

[Chicago White Sox]

9 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

They are based on surplus value regardless; the calculation is simply adjusted to give more credence to their present day value than the FV of a prospect.

For example, say they view Robertson as being worth 1 win to the the rest of the way, and they value a win at $9.5 million (no team does, but we'll just use the FA number), and he was owed $5 million the remainder of the season. His present day surplus value to them, is 4.5 million. But if we are saying that the B-Level prospect is worth 8 million, then wouldn't that be a net loss of 3.5 Million? Sure, but the Yankees may depreciate that 8 million FV by 50%, because the wins that B-Level prospect could provide them with is coming from a position of organizational strength, and a win 7 years from now may be worth 13 million, so that 8 million is equal to less than 1 win 6 years from now, bringing the present day value of the 40FV prospect at 4 million so the Yankees calculated their net return to be .5 million. FV is more valuable to bad teams and present value more valuable to good teams. This is how you see some overpayments at trade deadline.

Still disagree here.  The marginal value of a win come July 31st is worth far more than a potential win during the offseason for teams in the hunt (as it can be the difference between making the playoffs and/or winning a World Series) .  Teams are emphasizing short-term production over efficient spending / surplus value.

Furthermore, the trade deadline is a fairy restricted market and prices reflect that.  Teams that are desperate to fill holes come July typically pay a premium because sellers have the leverage.  The classic surplus value calculation doesn’t change, but market factors dictate a less efficient trade will likely be required.

The value of a prospect should not change simply because a team is competitive as that prospect’s value is still based on what other teams would give up to acquire them.  The trade deadline simply forces teams to pay a premium to acquire what they need at that point in time in an inefficient market.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Agreed with this. One example I would give is a 1.5 WAR closer with playoff experience on a $12 mil contract would be worth than a 1.5 WAR 7th inning RP with no PO experience on the same salary, especially around TDL.

And if I were to consider team needs, I would potentially pay more for a 1.5 WAR closer with 0 surplus value than to pay for a 0.5 WAR reliever with the same surplus value.

You're just adjusting your surplus value to correspond with your wants. That doesn't mean surplus value no longer exists in the trade calculation. 

As for the first part, if both those guys produced that 1.5 WAR over a large enough sample (let's say 5 seasons), they are worth the exact same and thinking the playoff experience has value is archaic. 

[Chicago White Sox]

9 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Agreed with this. One example I would give is a 1.5 WAR closer with playoff experience on a $12 mil contract would be worth than a 1.5 WAR 7th inning RP with no PO experience on the same salary, especially around TDL.

And if I were to consider team needs, I would potentially pay more for a 1.5 WAR closer with 0 surplus value than to pay for a 0.5 WAR reliever with the same surplus value.

100% agree, trade deadline deals are far more focused on short-term production than efficient asset utilization.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Still disagree here.  The marginal value of a win come July 31st is worth far more than a potential win during the offseason for teams in the hunt (as it can be the difference between making the playoffs and/or winning a World Series) .  Teams are emphasizing short-term production over efficient spending / surplus value.

Furthermore, the trade deadline is a fairy restricted market and prices reflect that.  Teams that are desperate to fill holes come July typically pay a premium because sellers have the leverage.  The classic surplus value calculation doesn’t change, but market factors dictate a less efficient trade will likely be required.

The value of a prospect should not change simply because a team is competitive as that prospect’s value is still based on what other teams would give up to acquire them.  The trade deadline simply forces teams to pay a premium to acquire what they need at that point in time in an inefficient market.

Yes, they pay a "premium" so they adjust what the value of a win today is to them - based on their place in the standings and the value of winning this year. They are still using surplus value to determine the trades value. They aren't just throwing in a prospect without knowing his value vs what they expect to get in return. They simply adjust their win values based on present and future.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[thxfrthmmrs]

8 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You're just adjusting your surplus value to correspond with your wants. That doesn't mean surplus value no longer exists in the trade calculation. 

As for the first part, if both those guys produced that 1.5 WAR over a large enough sample (let's say 5 seasons), they are worth the exact same and thinking the playoff experience has value is archaic. 

1. That just isn't true. Case in point, a guy who could close games continues to get the ball in 9th inning. Closer experience is something surplus value doesn't measure. If I need a good reliever, I would opt for the guys with closer experience than the guy without, if everything else is equal. Similarly, whether how archaic it is, teams still pay for guys with playoff experience, clubhouse presence, and such. These things SV does not measure but are valuable at trade deadline, which is why DR and TF had more value than you let on.

2. You already lost the argument when you wanted to use SV as your argument but said Frazier had 0 or negative SV. But continue to conveniently ignore it.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

1. That just isn't true. Case in point, a guy who could close games continues to get the ball in 9th inning. Closer experience is something surplus value doesn't measure. If I need a good reliever, I would opt for the guys with closer experience than the guy without, if everything else is equal. Similarly, whether how archaic it is, teams still pay for guys with playoff experience, clubhouse presence, and such. These things SV does not measure but are valuable at trade deadline, which is why DR and TF had more value than you let on.

2. You already lost the argument when you wanted to use SV as your argument but said Frazier had 0 or negative SV. But continue to conveniently ignore it.

Closer experience is irrelevant. Do you think anyone cared that Andrew Miller wasn't a closer? Or do you think anyone downgraded Hader because he wasn't a closer for Milwaukee? Production in high leverage situations matters, sure, but production in the 9th inning means next to nothing. 

Playoff experience has absolutely no statistical evidence supporting the claim that more of it = better outcomes. Playoff experience is not something smart eams pay for.

Yes, Frazier had no value. His expected WAR the rest of the year versus his salary was negative. I didn't lose an argument, because I'm not partaking in one. Frazier was a salary dump. A below average player has no value to a team when he's being paid as an average regular. The Yankees could have gone elsewhere to find a replacement that would have equaled his production, but cost less. They chose to add him in the deal so they would give up less. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[thxfrthmmrs]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Closer experience is irrelevant. Do you think anyone cared that Andrew Miller wasn't a closer? Or do you think anyone downgraded Hader because he wasn't a closer for Milwaukee? Production in high leverage situations matters, sure, but production in the 9th inning means next to nothing. 

Playoff experience has absolutely no statistical evidence supporting the claim that more of it = better outcomes. 

Yes, Frazier had no value. His expected WAR the rest of the year versus his salary was negative. I didn't lose an argument, because I'm not partaking in one. Frazier was a salary dump. A below average player has no value to a team when he's being paid as an average regular. The Yankees could have gone elsewhere to find a replacement that would have equaled his production, but cost less. They chose to add him in the deal so they would give up less. 

I am not saying in you're wrong from a statistical perspective but there are many teams that are still willing to for those intangibles, therefore additional value. However, Miller and Hader also brought other intangibles to the table that WAR does not measure, ability to pitch in any situation and for multiple innings.

Also please do explain how does a guy who had $30M in surplus value in the 1 1/2 years before the trade, and $10M in surplus value in the 3 months after the trade had no value, since you keep wanting to use SV as your argument?

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

26 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

I am not saying in you're wrong from a statistical perspective but there are many teams that are still willing to for those intangibles, therefore additional value. However, Miller and Hader also brought other intangibles to the table that WAR does not measure, ability to pitch in any situation and for multiple innings.

Also please do explain how does a guy who had $30M in surplus value in the 1 1/2 years before the trade, and $10M in surplus value in the 3 months after the trade had no value, since you keep wanting to use SV as your argument?

What are you using as the value of 1 WAR for SV? 

All WAR should not be treated equally in regards to value. 1 WAR does not equal 9.5 million but that becomes closer to the value of a win the higher up the WAR scale you go.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[thxfrthmmrs]

16 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

What are you using as the value of 1 WAR for SV? 

All WAR should not be treated equally in regards to value. 1 WAR does not equal 9.5 million but that becomes closer to the value of a win the higher up the WAR scale you go.

At the time of trade, I believe it was $10M per WAR. SV calculations are flat by most outlets but even if you want to use your increasing marginal scale he was worth more between 3 - 3.5 WAR/yr from depending on whether it's FG or BR for 5 year span from 2013-2017. By no means we're talking a 1 WAR player being paid at $10M here. In the SV theory, $20M+ SV player do not grow on trees and are definitely not worth nothing. And on top of that, to say that Yankees could have "find a replacement that would have equaled his production, but cost less" is asinine considering how little they have given up.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

At the time of trade, I believe it was $10M per WAR. SV calculations are flat by most outlets but even if you want to use your increasing marginal scale he was worth more between 3 - 3.5 WAR/yr from depending on whether it's FG or BR for 5 year span from 2013-2017. By no means we're talking a 1 WAR player being paid at $10M here. In the SV theory, $20M+ SV player do not grow on trees and are definitely not worth nothing. And on top of that, to say that Yankees could have "find a replacement that would have equaled his production, but cost less" is asinine considering how little they have given up.

I think we've discussed this previously but the WAR per dollar value that is publically available is horribly sourced - using simplistic analysis based solely on FA's WAR to dollar signed. 

I'd guarantee most organizations have it scaled, and broken out into trade, fa and arbitration values giving each player and avenue a different SV based on that. 

I'm not at my computer now, but what did Frazier produce WAR wise with the Yankees? More importantly, what was his expected WAR output prior to the deal?

Edited April 16, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run