Machado do-over

[Balta1701]

17 minutes ago, BackDoorBreach said:

Dane Dunning is looking like trade bait.

I don't see how the front office would be content going into 2020 without getting at least 1 big SP addition.  If they are going to think Strasburg and Cole are out of their price range there isn't much else I'd want.

Wheeler is going to have a draft pick attached to him, Bum I wouldn't want more than 2 years, then it's the Alex Woods and Jake Odorizzi's who would hardly be something to get excited about.  I don't think we have enough prospect ammo to pluck away a significant starter in a trade but who knows.

I'd prefer to spend a zillion dollars on Cole and try to trade for a RF since there isn't a great fit for this team out there.  Ozuna would be the only guy I'd actually want.  I wouldn't hate Puig but he's such a cancer and just kind of meh.  We really need a slugging LH bat to play in Right and there isn't one unfortunately.  

if Dunning recovers and is trade bait prior to 2021 that's a really good place to be because that means he recovered, had a good year in the minors, and we're no longer desperate for starting pitching so the guys we have stayed healthy and showed promise. Given that he's now missed 2 years, I think his trade value will be a little depressed, so he might be a good candidate to be a 2021 6th starter guy for us as well. 

I also know it won't happen, but yeah I would be all in on Cole as well. We know that those handful of truly elite pitchers can still be traded years down the line, it's happened repeatedly over the last couple years. 

If we will not get Cole, then any of the other options are acceptable if they're also teamed with a Nova-quality 6th starter. Wheeler, Bumgarner, whoever - fine, give up the 2nd round pick, its the appropriate time to do so. Someone has to be brought in.

In RF, given our lack of lineup balance, I'm not enthused about the FA options either. Ozuna would be ok but he doesn't hit lefty. I'm totally ok in RF with going for a stop-gap to fill that spot and wait to see whether other options become available. Kole Calhoun isn't particularly great, he's average or slightly below average, and he has a $14 million team option for next year. I think there's a very good chance the Angels would move him for a limited return to free up money to go after Cole or Strasburg. He'd be a little overpaid, but as long as we don't give up anything top 30 quality I'd take him on a 1 year deal. Hits left handed, is not awful defensively, is not great with the bats but at least is a substantial upgrade from what we currently have, buys us time to let the OF prospects and the trade options play out. 

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

5 minutes ago, mqr said:

I'm not trying to bail them out quite yet, because only time is going to tell, but maybe, just maybe, their process was on point and they were the ones that valued Machado correctly. 

It just matters if that money does in fact get spent and spent well. 

I think it was @Balta1701 who said 1 WAR is equal to approx $10M on the open market. So by that measure, the over/under for fair value on Machado over the life of his contract is 30 WAR. Yea, I’ll take the under easily.

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

I think it was @Balta1701 who said 1 WAR is equal to approx $10M on the open market. So by that measure, the over/under for fair value on Machado over the life of his contract is 30 WAR. Yea, I’ll take the under easily.

While he's had down seasons before, he's been worth 24.3 fWAR over the last 5 years. I'll take the over.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

12 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

While he's had down seasons before, he's been worth 24.3 fWAR over the last 5 years. I'll take the over.

Next season will be telling

[BackDoorBreach]

Boston is crying broke, it wouldn't make any sense for them but maybe Benintendi becomes available as was rumored a couple months ago. 

Mookie is gone either way in the next year and JDM might opt out. I wouldn't mind getting 1 of those 3.  

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

34 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

I think it was @Balta1701 who said 1 WAR is equal to approx $10M on the open market. So by that measure, the over/under for fair value on Machado over the life of his contract is 30 WAR. Yea, I’ll take the under easily.

Once again, that is not what teams pay for 1 WAR it's what 1 WAR was worth in FA. There is a very big difference.

Teams aren't paying guys to suck but guys who suck drag down the $/WAR number. 

Teams likely pay a good amount less, based on their internal projections, than that figure. WAR/$ also does not scale the same way - 1 WAR is worth about 4 million, while 4 WAR may be worth 30 million to a team. Depending on your value and rarity compared to your peers, you will make more. A 4 WAR catcher may make more than a 4 WAR LF.

[ewokpelts]

Machado and Harper are both earning their contracts. Both the pads and phils have experienced box office growth, and ratings are up, which translates to increased revenue (I believe both clubs have stakes in their cable networks). PLUS, the renewed interest creates long term sponsorship deals that bring in money for years.  Does anyone remember that Miller extended thier Sox sponsorship for TEN YEARS in the wake of the World Series win? Or that 7 god damm 11 paid the Sox HALF A MILLION DOLLARS to move gametimes up six minutes? That was directly connected to the club being “relevant”. 

 

I think the Sox would have benefited greatly by signing either player, just lookin at the financial side. But jerry was cheap timid and stupid with “his”money. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

24 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

While he's had down seasons before, he's been worth 24.3 fWAR over the last 5 years. I'll take the over.

Those 5 years encompassed much of his prime years while the back end of this contract will encompass the post-prime aspect of his career. 

I think 30 is a decent precedent - assuming he puts in a couple 5+ WAR seasons.

3, 5, 4.4, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.6, 2.3, 2, 1.8 

That is a back of a napkin calculation for his aging and giving him the benefit of first year pressures and no first year relaxation.

For 300 million I'd want some 6+ WAR years to compensate for that age regression. Manny is no guarantee to get there. 28.6 come the duration above. I think I'd probably take the under based on that but 30 is a realistic goal for Manny and if he ages like Beltre (defense maintains its value and power plays up) he blows by the projection. 

I think the Padres found the most likely outcome to be 25-30 WAR while 30+ was much more likely than less than 25 which weighed heavily on their evaluation. Say 1 SD for them fell between 25-35, now you see what SD was thinking.

For the Sox, maybe they valued him on the lower side being 22-30 being 1SD for their evaluation.

[Balta1701]

7 minutes ago, BackDoorBreach said:

Boston is crying broke, it wouldn't make any sense for them but maybe Benintendi becomes available as was rumored a couple months ago. 

Mookie is gone either way in the next year and JDM might opt out. I wouldn't mind getting 1 of those 3.  

JDM is a little down this season but I see no reason why he shouldn't opt out.

Mookie...I just can't imagine Boston letting him go. If you're the Red Sox you don't lose players like that, tax or no tax. 

[Balta1701]

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Those 5 years encompassed much of his prime years while the back end of this contract will encompass the post-prime aspect of his career. 

Age 22-27 is not "much of his prime years". 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, ewokpelts said:

Machado and Harper are both earning their contracts. Both the pads and phils have experienced box office growth, and ratings are up, which translates to increased revenue (I believe both clubs have stakes in their cable networks). PLUS, the renewed interest creates long term sponsorship deals that bring in money for years.  Does anyone remember that Miller extended thier Sox sponsorship for TEN YEARS in the wake of the World Series win? Or that 7 god damm 11 paid the Sox HALF A MILLION DOLLARS to move gametimes up six minutes? That was directly connected to the club being “relevant”. 

 

I think the Sox would have benefited greatly by signing either player, just lookin at the financial side. But jerry was cheap timid and stupid with “his”money. 

Gains from free agency - in revenue and attendance - are short lived in baseball and rarely will pay for the enitirity of the contract. You really only see gains in year one and then you're back to having to win to draw. No one is paying extra to go watch Machado or bryce if their teams arent competitive. If those contracts hamper your abilities to be competitive, then in the long run they'll cost you just as much revenue as they earn you in year 1.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

Age 22-27 is not "much of his prime years". 

In the modern game, yes it is. Primes are no longer 28-33 as they spiked too in the steroid er. Primes are 24/25-29/30 post steroid boom. You see significant and rapid aging impacts post 30 in baseball for many players. This is why free agency is dangerous and it's why players need to hit the market sooner to maximize their value.

[BackDoorBreach]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

JDM is a little down this season but I see no reason why he shouldn't opt out.

Mookie...I just can't imagine Boston letting him go. If you're the Red Sox you don't lose players like that, tax or no tax. 

He's going to test FA, he's said as much.  So it will be interesting to see what they do with him.  So do you get ahead of it and trade him to get something in your farm or let him walk and then overpay.

I think they trade him so they aren't holding a bag.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

In the modern game, yes it is. Primes are no longer 28-33 as they spiked too in the steroid er. Primes are 24/25-29/30 post steroid boom. You see significant and rapid aging impacts post 30 in baseball for many players. This is why free agency is dangerous and it's why players need to hit the market sooner to maximize their value.

So a guy who is 27 still has "much of his prime years remaining" based on 27 being less than 29/30.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

So a guy who is 27 still has "much of his prime years remaining" based on 27 being less than 29/30.

That means only 30% of his contract falls within his prime years of projection. That means 7 years of the contract fall outside of that.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

That means only 30% of his contract falls within his prime years of projection. That means 7 years of the contract fall outside of that.

however, since you labeled a 5 year period as falling inside his prime years, and 3 of those years fall into his contract, 60% of his prime years, or "Much of his prime" is encompassed by that 10 year contract.

[chitownsportsfan]

17 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Once again, that is not what teams pay for 1 WAR it's what 1 WAR was worth in FA. There is a very big difference.

Teams aren't paying guys to suck but guys who suck drag down the $/WAR number. 

Teams likely pay a good amount less, based on their internal projections, than that figure. WAR/$ also does not scale the same way - 1 WAR is worth about 4 million, while 4 WAR may be worth 30 million to a team. Depending on your value and rarity compared to your peers, you will make more. A 4 WAR catcher may make more than a 4 WAR LF.

Right.  It doesn't scale linearly.  The $/WAR calculation is helpful but it's not that precise applied on a case by case basis.  In addition to the examples you provided It appears that the last few offseasons teams have been valuing 1.5 WAR guys as basically replacement level.  Especially if they aren't a SS/CF/C.

Which is partially why giving Jose a guaranteed 2nd year is crazy.  Nobody else is likely to even consider it.

[chitownsportsfan]

5 minutes ago, Tony said:

Going to be interesting to see what the new philosophy is with the Red Sox. Mookie is obviously a guy you would build around.......but DD destroyed that farm system and there isn’t much to surround Devers and Betts longterm. 

Given their financial resources but knowing the intentions Betts has, do they trade him, try and restock some of the system, and build around Devers? But if Mookie is dead set on testing the market, which makes total sense, how much do you feel comfortable giving up to pry a franchise player from Boston? 

A team with their resources should never even consider a full tear down imo but it appears that may be the way they are headed.  The problem the Sox will have trying to trade their way into contention is that most of their MiLB stars are already pencilled in for 2019+.  This isn't like the Red Sox trading Moncada when they already had Devers.  Sox have very little if any prospect depth, outside maybe OF, and most of those guys are still a couple years away.

So that's part of the issue missing on Burger, Rutherford (so far) and then the injuries to the pitching.  I don't really see a good fit for a trade with Boston or anybody really.  It's going to come down to FA, and well, good luck.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

50 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Right.  It doesn't scale linearly.  The $/WAR calculation is helpful but it's not that precise applied on a case by case basis.  In addition to the examples you provided It appears that the last few offseasons teams have been valuing 1.5 WAR guys as basically replacement level.  Especially if they aren't a SS/CF/C.

Which is partially why giving Jose a guaranteed 2nd year is crazy.  Nobody else is likely to even consider it.

Yes, which also means the first two WAR should almost be removed from the calculation as people will pay about 8-10 million for a 2 WAR talent. You can builed a scaled distribution with weights attached to each WAR that better tells what every dollar is worth.

Also, when evaluating the value of 1 WAR you should use what teams paid based on a projected value and not what teams ended up paying based on the actual outcomes of the contract. Pujols stinks, but when assessing what teams pay for 1 WAR, you cannot use what he has become because the Angels did not intend to pay him all that money to be complete trash.

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, Tony said:

Going to be interesting to see what the new philosophy is with the Red Sox. Mookie is obviously a guy you would build around.......but DD destroyed that farm system and there isn’t much to surround Devers and Betts longterm. 

Given their financial resources but knowing the intentions Betts has, do they trade him, try and restock some of the system, and build around Devers? But if Mookie is dead set on testing the market, which makes total sense, how much do you feel comfortable giving up to pry a franchise player from Boston? 

You’re forgetting Bogaerts.

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

A team with their resources should never even consider a full tear down imo but it appears that may be the way they are headed.  The problem the Sox will have trying to trade their way into contention is that most of their MiLB stars are already pencilled in for 2019+.  This isn't like the Red Sox trading Moncada when they already had Devers.  Sox have very little if any prospect depth, outside maybe OF, and most of those guys are still a couple years away.

So that's part of the issue missing on Burger, Rutherford (so far) and then the injuries to the pitching.  I don't really see a good fit for a trade with Boston or anybody really.  It's going to come down to FA, and well, good luck.

Hypothetically speaking...if we don't over-spend on the RF spot this offseason, how would people think about Betts as a free agent target?

[fathom]

11 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Hypothetically speaking...if we don't over-spend on the RF spot this offseason, how would people think about Betts as a free agent target?

Would be amazing

[Moan4Yoan]

7 minutes ago, fathom said:

Would be amazing

Hahn could redeem himself on last year’s whiffs if he acquires a one year stop-gap for RF this offseason and then signs Betts in the 2021 offseason.  That would be amazing.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Moan4Yoan

[BackDoorBreach]

19 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Hypothetically speaking...if we don't over-spend on the RF spot this offseason, how would people think about Betts as a free agent target?

Yeah you do that all day long.  He's a FA after next year so that would mean we have -5 or so WAR in RF again if you don't get a stop gap.  Then we have to hope  we are the highest bidder and he wants to play here with the 300 million he was offered. 

[kwolf68]

The dead horse thread. Let Johnny Hustle make his mark elsewhere.