Comments on: 2009 MLB Trade Value: Introduction

By: scott

scott — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:43:29 +0000

Methinks Gordon Beckham shows up on this list in 2010. :)

By: Christian

Christian — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:25:27 +0000

While you may be right that Sandoval will age well, it’s wrong to put Fielder on and Sandoval off if you’re excluding Pablo because of his weight. They’re similar body types, both surprisingly fast for their weight, but Pablo, while not a good with the bat, is close to him in WAR and has 2 more years of club control!

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:35:00 +0000

Matt Kemp over Lincecum or Longoria? You are dreaming. I mean Matt Kemp is a fine talent but we obviously have some Dodger fans posting here. Plus, I agree with Kung Fu Panda not being in the top 50, the guy came from nowhere. I like Pablo but you can’t throw guys like that on this list based on one half season of baseball.

By: DC

DC — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:01:54 +0000

I wonder how Sandoval’s value would change as a catcher. He’d be more productive, but that’d likely even shorten his time of production and career.

By: dtoddwin

dtoddwin — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:59:20 +0000

Come on. He said he was close to top 50. 50 is about 1.6 players per organization (not team). Lincecum and Bumgarner and possibly Posey would be ahead of him in his own organization. Everyone thinks their team is getting screwed. This is one (bright) guy’s opinion.

By: dtoddwin

dtoddwin — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:53:10 +0000

I assume you were trying to be ironic. Top 10? Really? What part of the Bay area do you live in? You don’t understand the process going on here and you have no idea how to evaluate talent, projectabiity, etc if you think he’s top 10.

As for as Dave using body type as part of his logic, analysis has shown that players with that body typical decline faster than others. Citing Babe Ruth doesn’t disprove that analysis.

By: B

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:55:22 +0000

You have a good point, but I don’t think using Zobrist as your example was a good choice. Their age difference is a very important factor, and Zobrist has a past history of failing in MLB, while Sandoval has hit since the day he was called up. Career .336 vs. 392 wOBA for each, respectively.

By: NadavT

NadavT — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:50:16 +0000

I think it’s funny that so many people are up in arms about Sandoval being ranked so low, but nobody is complaining about Zobrist’s placement. Sure, he’s six years older, but this season he’s got more power, better plate discipline, better speed, and much better defense than Sandoval.

What’s that you say? He hasn’t sustained this level of performance long enough for it to be a reliable predictor of future performance? Interesting point.

By: B

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:37:01 +0000

Kemp #1? Kershaw top 5? No bias there or anything. Lincecum has to be #1 or 2, he’s amazing and he’ll still only be a Super Two after this season (most likely).

By: verd14

verd14 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:01:25 +0000

“yikes” as in seems paradoxical.