2011 Trade Value: #50-#46
After yesterday’s recap of last year’s list, and the lessons taken from it, we’re off to the races again with the 2011 Trade Value series.
To maintain transparency and avoid any kerfuffles this time around, I want to be clear that this column was inspired by Bill Simmons, who tackles this same topic for the NBA. Thanks for the fantastic idea, Bill.
Before we get to the last five spots on the list, let’s talk briefly about what question this list is attempting to answer. Trade value is not an easy thing to measure, and it differs for each team – the Yankees will be interested in an entirely different type of player than the Astros, for instance. Winning teams with high payrolls will give up prospects that rebuilding teams would never move, while for some teams a premium player with a salary to match just isn’t someone they’d be willing to add to their payroll. No teams will put the same value on the player, so we have to answer something a little more broad than “would this team trade Player A for Player B”, because if we’re talking about the Yankees and the Royals, we’re answering a specific question that has a lot of extra variables in it.
So, instead, I’d say the goal of the list is to measure the league-wide demand for a player’s services if that player was made available in the trade market. There are a few players that every single team in baseball would call about if they were put on the block due to their abilities and their contract status. The demand would be astronomical if they were actually gettable, and in most cases they’re so valuable they just won’t be traded.
Beyond those elite guys that are fairly easy to put near the top of the list, though, there are players who have some big positives, but also a significant negative that depresses their value to some franchises. For some guys, that may be a high salary with a long term commitment, or they could be near the end of a contract and be looking for a big extension in the near future. For others, the contract might be the asset itself, with the player having some kind of wart in his game that would keep some teams from actually thinking he’s worth a premium return. Others have off-the-field issues that might cause teams to discount what they’d give up to get them.
I try my best to weigh these factors and determine which teams would see as the biggest determinants in whether he’s a player they’d make a real push to acquire. That said, sometimes this involves hair slicing or making judgment calls, and not everyone is going to weight things the same way, which is fine; this list is intended to spark conversation and interesting discussion, and reasonable people can disagree over placement. Just try to keep in mind that there’s not a huge difference between spots on the list, and in many cases, a guy could move up or down by a decent margin and still have it be reasonable.
If you get bent out of shape because someone is #43 and you think he should be #41, you’re probably reading too much into specific placement on the list. In eyeballing the list, to me there’s a pretty clear top 15 or so, then there’s a big jumble where you could make a lot of different judgment calls than I do. There were also a few guys who I couldn’t believe I had to leave off the list (there’s no Jered Weaver, Cole Hamels, Matt Kemp, or Eric Hosmer for instance – it killed me to exclude them), but I ran this by a bunch of smart people who offered good feedback, tried to weigh the pros and cons as best we could, and this is what we came up with.
Rank – Player – Position – Team – Past 3 Calendar Year WAR
#50 – Brett Gardner, LF, New York: +12.8 WAR
Whether you agree that Brett Gardner is an elite player or not, he’s been an outstanding player for the Yankees the last few seasons. You don’t have to buy into UZR to agree that he’s a terrific defender who would be playing center field for nearly every other team in baseball, and he’s been an above average hitter at the same time. There just aren’t that many guys who add value on both sides of the ball at the level that Gardner does, and with three more years of team control and a skillset that probably won’t allow him to command massive salaries in arbitration, Gardner is one of the best bang-for-the-buck players in MLB as well.
#49 – Alex Avila, C, Detroit: +4.3 WAR
You can count the number of left-handed power hitting catchers in Major League baseball on one hand, so Avila brings a rare skillset to the table to begin with, but he also draws walks and is a quality defender, and he’s currently establishing himself as one of the better backstops in the game at age 24. If Avila had a longer track record to go off of, he’d probably be 20 or 30 spots higher on the list. Right now, there’s still some question as to how sustainable his current performance is, but he could regress a bit and still be a highly valuable asset. With four more years of team control after 2011, he’s an asset both short term and long term, and he’s the kind of player that nearly every franchise in baseball would be interested in if the Tigers made him available. He just needs to keep this up for another year or so in order to really establish himself as a premium Major Leaguer, but if he does, he’ll be much higher on this list next year.
#48 – Danny Espinosa, 2B, Washington: +3.8 WAR
Espinosa was a tricky one for me. On one hand, he’s the clear 2011 National League Rookie of the Year, providing significant present value in his first year in the big leagues. But a decent amount of his value is tied up in his defense at second base and an HBP-driven on base percentage. If he continues to give up his body to get on base at this rate, he may have long term health concerns, but if he stops getting plunked so often, his production could suffer. In addition, teams generally don’t value defense at non-premium positions quite as highly as they should, and while Espinosa could probably handle shortstop, the fact that he’s playing second while the Nationals use Ian Desmond at shortstop probably doesn’t help the perception of his ability to make the transition. He’s a quality player with a lot of long term value, but I doubt teams would value him at the same rate as which he’s produced in the big leagues to date.
#47 – Elvis Andrus, SS, Texas: +8.6 WAR
Some people see Andrus as a no-bat guy who makes a lot of baserunning mistakes, but he’s still a 22-year-old who is in the conversation for best defensive infielder in the game, and his offense is better than people give him credit for. He doesn’t have much power, but he’s a high contact guy who will take some walks once in a while and is a high percentage base-stealer, so while he’s not going to scare anyone at the plate, he’s a useful offensive player, especially for a shortstop. Toss in the quality of the glove and his age, and Andrus could be a well-above average player for years to come. His early ascension to the majors means he’ll be arbitration eligible at year’s end, but like Gardner he won’t be able to point to gaudy numbers to demand a huge raise, and he should still be able to provide three years of significant surplus value in the future.
#46 – Starlin Castro, SS, Chicago Cubs: +4.0 WAR
If I could find a plurality of people who were convinced that Castro would be able to stay at shortstop in the long run, he’d probably rank higher, but even with the questions about his glovework, it’s hard to overlook what Castro has done offensively in the big leagues at such a young age. You just don’t see many middle infielders who can be a league average Major League hitter at ages 20 and 21, and even though it’s heavily BABIP driven, there’s potential for him to be a pretty solid big league hitter for a long time. He has terrific contact skills and more power than you might expect from a guy his size, and if he improves his approach at the plate, he could be a terrific top-of-the-order hitter well into the future. If he’s a second baseman, he won’t be quite as valuable, but there’s still time for him to improve at shortstop and prove he can stick there, and the Cubs have until 2016 to figure out where he fits best.
1
Looks like you snuck Gardner in there at #50
Yes, Gardner was the ultimate bubble guy, and he went on and off the list a few times. The list got changed one last time after I wrote the intro, which is why you guys saw him referred to as an omission. He snuck back in at the last second.
so who is #50B/51? You have me curious now.
I’m a Yankee fan and I’m going to go ahead and be an idiot and disagree with this ranking without seeing the rest of the list. He’s older than what most people think and I’m sure there’s others I would rather have than Gardner, including Jered Weaver (the AL leader in bWAR and ML leader in ERA) and Eric Hosmer. Probably Cole Hamels too.
Hosmer apparently…
I got to say, even as a Yankee fan who really loves Gardner and has seen him go from one of the most undervalued players(even by Yankee fans) to possibly the most overrated. I would trade him for Hamels,Weaver or Kemp in a heartbeat. Not even a second of hesitation really.
I know you said yourself this isn’t about 1 on 1 trades, but I have a hard time believing any team would trade a Hamel or Weaver(sub 29 year old aces) for a 27 year old LF’er whose biggest asset is speed and who has no power to make up for his eventual decline in speed.
If you factor in the contracts, as this list does, half of your argument (the ages of the pitchers, gardner’s potential decline in speed) becomes irrelevant
Sorry Dave… No GM in his/her right mind would trade would trade away Cole Hamels for the rights to Brett Gardner…regardless of payroll. Not even inside or outside a vacuum.
Even in the real world the Yanks would have to give up a lot more that just Brett Gardner for the summer rental rights to Cole Hamels.
I see Gardner!
For whatever reason, I find myself wanting to disagree with the Avila inclusion. But I cannot. It’s just so valuable to have that kind of production out of a young catcher. I doubt he can completely sustain it, as his .350ish BABIP is relatively high, but with so many teams lacking at catcher, the value held by the Tigers in Avila is very high.
I think it has something to do with the fact that there is always talk of moving good sticks off catcher. It sort of goes like…
This guy is extra valuable because he is a catcher who can really hit.
This guy is too good a hitter to risk injury at catcher.
We’ll work him into DH/1B/LF/3B more and more to get production and save his legs, prolonging his career.
Hey, look, even though he’s still really good he’s not as valuable if he’s not catching and we are paying him a lot.
Hi, Joe Mauer. How ya doin?
I honestly can’t remember anyone other than Mauer who got moved so young but I think that’s how percieved value gets lowered.
Pablo Sandoval says “hi”, and Bryce Harper wants you to know he was a catcher until the day he was drafted.
For that matter, Victor Martinez is doing the trick pretty well but because he’s not The Franchise it’s never gotten quite the same press.
Carlos Delgado.
He never played a game anywhere other than C throughout his minor league career, but in 1994 the defending champion Blue Jays decided to make him their Opening Day LF, instead of putting him behind Pat Borders on the C depth chart. When they demoted him to AAA in June, he returned to C, but then he moved permanently away from C the next year.
I’ll always wonder whether he could have been a HOFer at C.
I should have said I couldn’t think of anybody who was moved so young after playing a substantial amount of catcher in MLB. Lots of guys are drafted as catchers and are moved well before reaching the majors (Konerko, lots of others). Some guys move late in their careers (Fisk, Piazza) when they physically can’t do it as often but can still hit. How many really great catchers play the position. Mauer is 28 and has played 6 full seasons behind the plate with the big club. What I meant was I can’t think of anybody who has had a career path like that although I am sure there must be someone.
Well, in his Pirates days Jason Kendall sorta fits the bill, considering how at age 27 or 28 after 4 years of amazing catcher performance, he played quite 28 games in the outfield. It wasn’t a permanent change, but still, it was semi similar.
Also, Jason Kendall from 1997-2000 was ridiculous. A combined OBP for those 4 years over .400 I’m pretty sure, a 4.1 WAR season in 1999 in which he only played 78 games, even adjusted for era with wRC+ that seasons offensive performance tops all of Joe Mauers seasons besides 2009. Hard to even say steroids considering Kendall never even had a 20 homer pace even before his freak injury. He doesn’t seem to get the credit he’s due for his early career.
Yeah completely destroying an ankle like he did can pretty much ruin a career. Just never the same player after that happened. Who knows what might have been.
Still a prospect but Wil Myers also fits the bill of a converted catcher.
Dale Murphy wants a shout out, too.
Craig Biggio fulfills your query, I believe.
“(there’s no Jered Weaver, Cole Hamels, Matt Kemp, Eric Hosmer, or Brett Gardner, for instance – it killed me to exclude them)”
What? Gardner is #50
Hamels is a FA after the year. Weaver and Kemp will be FAs in 2013, with 2012 arbitration promising a massive Salary for both. Those three are easy to distinguish as low-value trade targets for non-contenders and low-budget teams.
As far as Hosmer, he just hasn’t done anything in the Majors to warrant inclusion over a proven 4+ range WAR player at a premium position. In fact, so far in his young Career, Lucas Duda has been as valuable as Eric. You’re talking a (so-far) sub-par fielding, ML-average hitting First Baseman – regardless of “potential”, there isn’t anything shown at the ML level to this point.
Remember also, semi-comparable Justin Smoak was traded in a package for a Cliff Lee rental
Hamels has one more year of arb left.
I believe Hosmer has shown way more than Duda at this point. As for “sub-par fielding”, you do realize that two months is not a sufficient sample size for advanced defensive metrics, don’t you? I’m not saying that Hosmer should be included, but comparing him to Duda is ludicrous. You clearly have not seen him play.
rbt,
“As for “sub-par fielding”, you do realize that two months is not a sufficient sample size for advanced defensive metrics, don’t you?”
- Agree, which is why I said so far
“I believe Hosmer has shown way more than Duda at this point.”
They have almost identical WAR values, so not sure how you feel Hosmer has been more valuable. That is all I had stated, and I didn’t compare the two outside their actual, on the field, produced “value”
Wait, didn’t you bemoan the fact that you had to leave Gardner off, only to start the list with him?
It looks like you didn’t exclude Brett Gardner after all.
“If I could find a plurality of people who were convinced that Castro would be able to stay at shortstop in the long run, he’d probably rank higher”
You mean a majority of people who see him sticking at shortstop. He can do it or he can’t. There is no third option.
Glad to see a good explanation of how you came up with your list and how it should be interpreted. I hope people read the intro to this post before they start complaining that their team would never trade player X for player Y.
“I think he’s a 3Bman”
“I think he’s a 2Bman”
“I think he can stick at SS”
“I’m not sure whether he can stick at SS”
Options 1 and 2 you listed fall into option 4. After all, if he can’t stick at SS, where does he go? Theoretically, there are 6 other options in addition to the “2B” or “3B” argument.
plu·ral·i·ty
? ?/pl??ræl?ti/ Show Spelled[ploo-ral-i-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
the excess of votes received by the leading candidate, in an election in which there are three or more candidates, over those received by the next candidate ( distinguished from majority).
2.
more than half of the whole; the majority.
3.
a number greater than one.
What problem do you have with him using plurality?
I would probably value Weaver, Hamels, Kemp, and Hosmer above all of those guys besides Castro. Do you really think there would be less league wide demand for Hamels or Hosmer than Espinosa if they both became available? I think you may be guilty of being a little to cute here.
too cute*
I went in assuming that all the premium young guys would make it, but once I looked at the evidence of what elite players with less than two years of team control left were able to command in trade, the evidence just wasn’t there to support it. I agree that it seems like those guys should make it, but once you look at what Cliff Lee or Zack Greinke got when they were traded, it’s hard to make the case that teams really will give up many years of a premium young player to get a short term star.
Smoak isn’t a “premium young player”?
Not really. He’s a nice young player, but he’s a first baseman with contact issues who isn’t a great defender. The upside is somewhat limited.
Dan Haren fetched Tyler Skaggs…I’d say the Mariners got a pretty good package for Cliff Lee. They could have gotten Jesus Montero, and instead they got a pretty good first basemen.
My biggest contention is Gardner over Weaver, I mean…you’re honestly telling me that if you were Tony Reagins you’d accept Gardner STRAIGHT UP for Jered Weaver?
Omar,
Yep.
Do the math on it
Gardner
2.4 WAR – 2009 (half season)
6.0 WAR – 2010
3.0 WAR – 2011 (half season)
Youre looking at a 4-6 WAR player at a premium position with 3.5 years of team control about to make fairly litter relative to value in arbitration
or
Weaver
3.9 WAR – 2009
5.9 WAR – 2010
4.7 WAR – 2011 (half season)
You’re looking at a 5-7 WAR player already making 7.37 MM with 1 year of arbitration left which will probably see him make 11 MM+
Value wise, Gardner is a much, much, much better investment for a team at this point in time. And while teams like NYY, Bos, etc might be inclined to jump instantly at a Weaver being available, teams like Cleveland or Pittsburgh would most likely stay away yet be all over a Gardner trade.
Omar,
Tony Reagins wouldn’t because he has Peter Bourjos and Mike Trout holding down center field for the Angels. That doesn’t mean that other teams, assuming they Jared Weaver, wouldn’t.
Dave qualified all these “what if” questions in the introduction. Some of these might take a bit more thought than Team Situation X for Player Y.
Smoak is also the slowest player in all of mlb this season(0.3 speed score)
Tyler Skaggs – Meh. Boz Skaggs – aww yeah, son.
Once again, as happens all too frequently in your lists, you have introduced a huge ambiguity with this comment. Here you seem to be saying that you are listing the players by their trade value as perceived by Major League teams, yet your Gardner comments imply that you are listing the players by your judgement of trade value, not by the generally perceived value. This renders your list suspect and is going to cause total chaos in the comments.
Your trade value series is so much better than Bill Simmon’s its not even funny. He should reference you at the beginning of each of his posts.
quick, everyone find the typos before bill simmons calls and claims dave stole his writing style
Both Avila and Espinosa feel too uncertain to be on this list, but then again, because of their age their expected marginal value even with a 30% bust rate is probably high.
It’d have been really nice for you to have included contract information for each player, and your estimate at his marginal value above that, since that is in essence what you are trying to rank.
One – he lists contract status for the players as most of them are under club control.
“With four more years of team control after 2011, he’s an asset both short term and long term”
“His early ascension to the majors means he’ll be arbitration eligible at year’s end”
If you know how much arbitration eligible players are going to make next year, please let everyone else know.
Two – Cot’s exists and isn’t hard for people to reference if they have questions. He also didn’t provide detailed hitting/fielding stats because people can go look those up too.
Your post is mostly wrong (see below), so I’ll just say my point another way: He is trying to rank value, specifically value above a player’s contract. Throw in team control, and that is literally all we need to see, the rest is narrative and interjection and stuff to make it readable, which is all great, but without clearly stating the first stuff in a systematic way, what’s the point? Other than just to make a list and have people read it. It’s about consistency and method.
One – he lists contract status (wrong, he makes outside referencest to contracts, but never says anything about money or value) for the players as most of them are under club control (these 5 are, but what about the rest?).
If you know how much arbitration eligible players are going to make next year, please let everyone else know. (wrong, we have a pretty good idea)
Two – Cot’s exists and isn’t hard for people to reference if they have questions. (MAKE IT EASY AND PUT IT IN THE ARTICLE, THATS THE WHOLE POINT)
He also didn’t provide detailed hitting/fielding stats because people can go look those up too. (we’re not talking about specific stats – WERE TALKING ABOUT VALUE. He used WAR, so why no go the extra mile and actually calculate value above contract, etc)
He is trying to rank value, specifically value above a player’s contract.
Not true, Telo, in the sense that you mean. This is not purely a mathematical exercise.
Cameron, as usual, has not made it at all clear what he is really trying to rank. It would be nice if he made a clear statement such as you did.
Castro could fairly easily stick at SS. His only issue is errors, which plenty of guys have when they first come up. He’s also cut down on his errors a lot over the course of the last month or so (I know, small sample). He’ll likely never be a great defender, but he could quite easily end up right around 0 to -5, and if so he’d be perfectly fine staying there. He’s 21 and could possibly manage 4WAR with a better defensive second half.
I sure hope Heyward isn’t on here anywhere. But I’d be pretty surprised if he’s not somewhere in the top 30.
Why in the world would you hope Heyward isn’t on here? Do you honestly believe he isn’t one of the 50 most valuable trade assets in baseball and more valuable than Castro? Even with the injured shoulder this year (and we saw what something similar did to Upton last year), Heyward still have produced over 1.5 more WAR in his career than Castro in fewer games. Unless you think Heyward is the new JD Drew, this isn’t even close. Heck, even if Heyward does end up injured as much as Drew he’s still probably just as valuable as Castro.
I’m not trying to criticize the list, b/c I know you wrestled with this, and of course this isn’t really the methodology you used (as you clearly stated in the intro), but just simplifying things a bit for fun, I have to ask:
Would the Yankees trade Gardner for Weaver or Hamels straight up?
I believe the answer is a resounding HELL YES. Cashman would carry Gardner to Anaheim/Philly on his back to bring back one of those two pitchers. He’d then sniff around for a new LFer who could adequately fill in until a permanent solution is found. The number of top of the rotation starters who are going to be available at the deadline is probably going to be zero, so I have to think their scarcity drives their value way up.
Again, not saying you are wrong, just offering a different POV.
Sure – if the list was “Trade Value To The Yankees”, it would be almost all high priced superstars. They aren’t as concerned with getting bang for the buck. But the other 29 franchises are.
See, if you have included marginal value above contract then it might make more sense to Steve…
I can think of many teams that would trade Gardner for Hamels or Weaver straight up. You’re talking about 2 young and elite aces. Red Sox, Cubs, Mets, Dodgers, Cardinals, Rangers? I suppose you could include the Phillies and Angels as well if Hamels/Weaver weren’t on the team to begin with.
I don’t disagree with your point in general, but I think saying “the other 29 franchises” oversells it.
There are many teams that would trade a Gardner for Hamels. Any team that has reasonable expectations of making the playoffs should be willing to “overpay” in terms of future value for an elite starting pitcher, because an elite starting pitcher will have a disproportionate impact on a playoff series. In a 5 game series, they can start 40% of your games as opposed to 20% in the regular season, and 30% in a 7 game series.
Teams besides the Yankees make trades like this all the time. If no team was ever willing to trade future value for present value, deals including prospects would never happen.
Didn’t the Rangers get Cliff Lee last year? Didn’t the Brewers get Sabathia and Greinke? Didn’t the Phillies get Lee in 2009?
If Hamels were a FA at the end of the year, I’d agree 100%. But he’s not. 1 1/2 seasons is a long time and potentially encompasses 2 whacks at winning a WS. I think almost every bigger market team would be interested in “overpaying” for Hamels.
Agreed. And any team that’s a serious playoff contender knows that pitching is always the key component to winning – especially in the shorter 5 game division series. Acquiring someone like Hamels or Weaver would make a HUGE impact on the chance of a World Series title… something that every team is willing to overpay for.
Ahh, but Telo, it’s not just a matter of marginal value above contract, because that particular perspective matters more to some teams than others.
You guys do realize you’re talking about guys who just missed the list with the guy who landed 50th on the list when he clearly states
“If you get bent out of shape because someone is #43 and you think he should be #41, you’re probably reading too much into specific placement on the list. In eyeballing the list, to me there’s a pretty clear top 15 or so, then there’s a big jumble where you could make a lot of different judgment calls than I do.”
The difference between 50, 51 and 52 isn’t going to be any different than 41 and 43.
Funny how you still say 29 rather than 28 franchises.
Well, I’m certainly not bent out of shape over it.
Just saying that the Yankees would trade Gardner for Hamels in a heartbeat. I know that is not the way the list was written, just seemed like a relevant point if you had to break a tie b/w two guys who, like you said, were so close.
Steve, you clearly don’t understand the point of the list despite several attempts to explain it to you in an easily understandable way.
Sure the Yankees would trade Gardner for Weaver or Hamels, but that’s because: 1) Gardner’s skill set is underrated by most teams and 2) the Yankees specifically could afford to keep those SPs long term. Gardner is arguably a more valuable asset to your average team due to his costs being under control for a while.
I understand this, but these trades happen all the time.
The Brewers could not afford Sabathia. The Rangers ultimately did not keep Cliff Lee. Heck, the Phillies didn’t even think they could afford to keep Lee long-term, and they still traded for him the first time. The Brewers might not be able to keep Greinke. The Marlins could not keep Ivan Rodriguez, etc. etc.
Sometimes teams overpay b/c they think the current season represents their best chance to win the World Series.
I agree Bryan. Most small market teams wouldn’t even consider trading for Hamels (9.5M, then one year of arb) or even Weaver (~7.4M, then 1 arb) except in an extraordinary circumstance. To me Gardner provides better value than the higher priced Weaver and Hamels – even if Hamels or Weaver are better players – which brings us back to what was stated in the introduction, which is certain types of players have different value to different teams. I think that league-wide, Gardner is slightly more coveted than Weaver/Hamels.
@Kevin, but this is true of any team that isn’t contending this year or next. Would it make any sense for the Cubs or Dodgers or Mets to trade for Weaver or Hamels even though they are large market teams?
Steve,
But what you are not factoring is that those teams traded unknown commodities for said Ace – not a proven commodity producing a similar value to the club.
Gardner has been a 11.4 WAR player since his the start of the 2009 seasons over about 2 seasons worth of playing time. That is drastically different then trading a teams top-prospect. Unlike the still-unknown prospect, Gardner is already a star-level player producing value with-in the range of Weavers 14.7 over the same seasons (but with +0.5 years worth of playing time).
over Brett
Then, again, consider the 11.4 WAR guy comes at a cost which might average out to 5-6 MM/per over the next 3.5 years while Weaver makes almost 7.5 this season and will pull in 11+ in 2012, his last of team control.
Joe, I understand that, but they also traded several of those unknowns with zero service time instead of just one who has already used up most of his pre-arb clock.
I know, it’s not so black and white. I was just (sloppily) assuming those “packages” and Gardner were roughly equivalent even factoring in the variation that comes with the prospects.
Otter: Yeah, I agree. Sometimes it makes more sense for the big-market teams who aren’t in contention to be more fiscally responsible with a young player like Gardner rather than splurging for a year or two on Hamels. But it almost always makes sense for small-market teams to with the best value regardless of overall ability, which is why I think Gardner is more valuable than those other guys.
Steve,
Yeah, but I think you might be a little too focused on a handful of high profile Ace trades and basically downplaying everything else. You have to factor in the Aces who got traded who didn’t bring fantastic hauls as well – they get traded quite often really, and some land less then impressive packages.
Also consider (the very few) other young stud OF/CFers here too and what they have brought (or at least have been rumored to demand).
I think it comes down to perceived value of Aces being a bit too high to most people, where that market is actually fairly hit or miss depending on the specific league situation at the time of a trade. On the flip side, we have a commodity we really dont see getting moved all that often, yet even Granderson with his similar/lower-then-Gardner production and higher-then-Gardner salary cost the Yankees an ace-like package of Jackson, Kennedy and Coke.
Steve,
While of course most of the big money teams would take Hamels or Weaver over Gardner, Dave explained that you have to look at this more globally. Hypothetically, if OAK decided to trade Gio Gonzalez and they called every team and said make your best offer, and LAA offered Weaver and NYY offered Gardner, which player do you think OAK would choose?
Not even Weaver or Hamels, what about Danks or Gio Gonzalez? Same goes for Espinosa (who I have a bigger issue with since there isn’t much track record).
Also, there is pretty clearly a market inefficiency for proven MLB players vs prospects right now imo. If the Sox, for example, trade Quentin (under team control for two more years iirc) to the Giants, is there any way Brandon Belt comes back in return? Or to the Braves… Mike Minor? I say no way, which is sort of crazy imo since the Sox are taking on a lot more risk in that trade.
The intro was very well written, and many of the uneducated comments that will be posted will be from people who did not read the intro, and the analysis of value. Also, thank you to the 2000 people who were able to notice that Brett Gardner is on the list despite being mentioned in the introduction as an exclusion, I’m sure all of you were the first to notice that.
However, I do believe Jered Weaver belongs on this list. Though his stats are a little inflated right now with an elevated LOB% (81.2%) and xFIP of 3.46 he is still an ace. A young ace who would command premium prospects back in a deal. Though I love what Espinosa has done this year I just do not see the value over Weaver at this juncture.
5.5 years of Espinosa or 1.5 years of Weaver. Tough to argue that Weaver’s present value outweighs four extra years of team control.
Which is why this needs to spelled out in the actual rankings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Dear Telo…
It is spelled out in the actual rankings and in the intro. Get off it.
If you want an article that is just a listing of player names with expected surplus value, go write it yourself.
If you didn’t get what you wanted from this, go get what you paid for it back and go away.
No Kemp, Weaver, OR Hamels??? Come on man, they’d still bring in a gigantic ass haul if traded today. Just because they are free agents in 1.5 to 2.5 years (I think that would be Hamels, right?), damn.
I assumed the same thing going on. The problem is that looking through recent history, players with less than two years of team control have not returned big hauls for the teams trading them. The packages skew towards quantity rather than quality.
Isnt it also worth something knowing that you would get 1.5 years of Hamels and then, either another year from acceptance of arbitration, or Type A compensation for him? Doesn’t that make up for the extra 2-3 years you get out of a Danny Espinosa (well, that and the HUGE difference in talent)?
That’s only because the selling team definitely couldn’t afford to keep them and would only be getting compensation picks when they left as a free agent. 5.5 years of Espinosa might be more valuable than 1.5 years of Weaver but it’s not guaranteed that the team trading for a Weaver won’t sign him to an extension. Surplus value from cheap young players is great but their value on the field can be replaced much more easily than that of a truly elite level player. I get the feeling that the team you would get from this trade value project would young, cheap and relatively talented but never win anything.
Also, as far as Gardner’s “cheap” skillset, he’s Carl Crawford with less power and more walks and Crawford got good amounts in arbitration and free agency.
I can’t believe that Kemp wouldn’t bring more than Gardner. I’m not talking about who the better player is, but if both got traded next week…
The issue I have with this premise is that the star players you’re referring to didn’t bring back quality, except that was at the team who traded them’s discretion, right? The Indians chose that package from the Phillies, perhaps instead of one with one prospect and another guy. It doesn’t mean that if the Indians had said “Lee for Brown straight up” that it wouldn’t have happened. Similarly if the Dodgers were trading Kemp to the Nats, I believe they could acquire Espinoza straight up, but perhaps might choose a package of players like Peacock, Hood, and Chris Marrero. This might be because they’re idiots, but also because teams tend to skirt criticism of these deals because they might turn out like the Expos/Indians Bartolo Colon deal. There’s safety (from criticism) in numbers so to speak. They might also do that deal because Ned Colletti is a horse’s ass. It’s really a toss up.
I can kinda understand that, but honestly, do you think the Nationals wouldn’t trade Espinosa for Kemp, Weaver, or Hamels? Not only Espinosa, but more? I’m not saying it would all be Teixeira type trades (the first one, not second), but if the Dodgers traded Kemp they would definitely get a stud or two in return. I love Kemp but if he were traded I’m sure he could get a top 10 prospect and maybe another b.
Marc – You can’t assume Type A comp after next year…. the CBA is up and this is one item that very easily could be altered.
I don’t see how a front office would make a trade assuming they get Type A comp after 2012. Also even if you assume compensation still exists, a lot of teams might not offer arbitration unless there was a handshake agreement that Hammels would decline it. Quite a few teams would not want to pay 15-20 mil for an arbitration year as it would be a massive % of their payroll.
Finally – if you are going to tack on a year due to arbitration for Hamels… can’t you tack on the same year to the end of Espinosa’s team control?
Ivdown-
Do you think Texas trades Andrus straight up for any of those 3 and their remaining contracts?
Maybe not them, but I might. Weaver’s been one of the 5 best pitchers in baseball the last 2-3 seasons, Kemp is finally showing that monster potential that we all knew was there and is putting up MVP numbers, Hamels is having the best year of his career and has always been a great pitcher.
As for me, I’m an offense first type of guy. That’s why I would never place Gardener as high as he is on this list, and I would trade Andrus for any 3 of Kemp, Weaver, Hamels. Absolutely.
A gigantic ass-haul?
Yes, I’m super articulate
I think Espinosa’s ranked fine. He should have a somewhat higher average going forward, which would probably make up for any decline in HBP rate. And there are still enough questions about maintaining that power going forward that late 40′s is a good position for him, I think
2009 Gordon Beckham called. He disagrees.
Disagrees with what? I’m not sure.
But I will point out that Beckham ended with a lower WAR than Espinosa already has, and had a lower wRC+ than Espinosa has now, by about 15.
I understand the argument that Avila and Espinosa would provide more value over the next 5.5 years vs. 1.5 seasons of Hamels/Weaver, but if the Tigers or Nationals were trying to acquire one of those pitchers I would think that the Phillies/Angels would want a package to start with Avila/Espinosa and then they would want some additional players. I also think that the Tigers or Angels would likely trade Avila/Espinosa straight up for Hamels/Weaver. Trades like this almost never happen, though, so who knows.
The Mariners gave up a low A prospect, a B prospect, and a low B prospect for a year of CLIFF LEE. Avila OR Espinosa are better than that package by themselves.
Not sure we can use that deal as the standard though. The M’s used up half of that year of Lee and then flipped him for a better package. I understand Dave’s point that aces in their final years aren’t getting the huge packages one would expect, but that M’s for Lee package was still the outlier, iMO. Unless you buy into the “Morrow for League was part of the Lee trade” conspiracy. In which case you could probably argue the value dealt was greater than Espinoza/Avila.
You’re taking one trade and making it the standard. The Mariners destroyed the Phillies on that trade. The M’s were then able to trade Lee midway through the next season for a player that many people would have said at the time (and some would still say) was comparable to Espinosa/Avila. If 0.5 seasons of Lee = Smoak + other prospects, 1.5 seasons of Hamels is probably worth Espinosa/Avila, no?
That’s overrating the package the M’s gave up. I loved Aumont, but he was a B prospect at best, and Gillies no more than a C; Ramirez was somewhere in between. (Hard to imagine that at the time of the deal, he and Pineda were regarded about the same by a lot of M’s fans.)
Interesting observations about Espinosa’s HBP skill and the fact that he’s playing further to the right defensively than his skill set would allow. That said, I’m wondering if UZR does justice to at least on aspect of his defense. Specifically, Espinosa plays a deep 2d base on overshifts. He’s able to get away with it because he has a spectacular arm for a 2d baseman. He is able to make plays on slower hit balls and take advantage of the deep positioning on harder hit balls because his arm let’s him throw guys out. I believe the latest UZR throws out overshifts. It’s probably the case that a guy with an outfielder’s arm like Zobrist can make these plays, but it is fun to watch Espinosa make them.
The Angels would not trade Weaver for Gardner. The Phillies would not trade Hamels for Gardner. Doesn’t that make those guys higher on the list than Gardner. I’d argue that the Royals would take the package they got from the Brewers over Gardner if you want to show a small market team.
I don’t think you can use the Cliff Lee trade to the Mariners as an example. That was clearly just a terrible mistake.
I agree with you about the Phillies/Angels rejecting those trades (and the opposing team accepting them), but that ignores the team-specific logic they’re trying to get away from. It’s not “would their current team make the A-for-B trade?”, it’s, “Would the league at large tend to pay more for player A or player B?”
I happen to think that Weaver, Kemp, and Hamels would get more in a trade, but I believe you’re asking the wrong question…
I’m guessing this list is now exhausted of Cubs…
You mean besides #46?
He’s saying besides Castro
Soto’s probably lost enough value to drop off from his spot on last year’s list. The Cubs are devoid of any other positive reasons to talk about them.
In ’11 Avila has benefited from a BABIP that seems very high (.349) given both his good-not-great LD rate (19%) and the fact that he is a catcher, who typically don’t have the wheels to have that type of rate. His BABIPs in his previous two seasons, while only partial seasons, were .278 and .308. His to-date performance is somewhat fluky. Power is probably real, though.
Andrus’s value is almost entirely derived from his glove. If it wasn’t for his defense, he wouldn’t be in the majors – his stick is that bad.
Andrus is 13th among qualified shortstops in wOBA, 15th among shortstops with at least 100 PAs. You’re just absolutely wrong about his offense.
Those other shortstops wouldn’t be in the majors if it weren’t for their gloves either. Oh wait, I think we’ve just defined shortstops.
Consider me pessimistic on Avila. Of major league catchers, I’ll take Posey, McCann, Wieters, Santana, and Montero (with their contract situations) over Avila.
He makes so little contact, he has to keep up his current rate on ball-in-play and power production to be worth anything, and while he has decent enough defense, I don’t consider it to be a plus.
Seems like there’s still a missing piece in the explanation. It seems like we are assuming, for purposes of this exercise, that Random Average MLB Team who would be assessing player X’s value, believes there is very little chance that they will re-sign player X to a market value contract. Is that what you have in mind? I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that premise, but if it’s the case it should be stated.
It seems like what we’re actually talking about here is the trade value of CURRENT contracts, not actual player trade value. If you gave a team the option of the remainder of Danny Espinosa’s current contract and then the opportunity to sign him or Jered Weaver’s current contract and then the opportunity to sign him, I have a really tough time imagining Random Team would choose Espinosa. Seems like we are only talking about the value remaining on a current contract.
Yeah, my biggest problem with this list (and in the past) is guys like Avila, who are only here because of a few months of good performance. If someone had asked in the comments last year why Dave left him off, Dave probably would’ve had a snarky dismissal. I’m not confident in his bat going forward, as low as the bar is for a plus defensive catcher. I understand guys with 3,4+ years of control are intrinsically more valuable, but I think there’s a better balance to be found with proven performance/long-term control.
Espinosa’s the CLEAR ROY for the NL? Brandon Beachy wants to have a chat with you….
Beachy’s on pace to finish with under 120 IP. Even if he does maintain his nice ERA/WHIP, it’s gonna be tough to compete with a 2B who is on pace for 80 runs, 28 HR, 90 RBI and 20 steals, while also playing very good defense. And I’m a Beachy fan, too.
Only on pace for 120 IP because he’s been injured. Not saying Beachy deserves the ROY, just that its not a “clear cut finish” as Beachy’s got a 4.5 WAR/full season pace going, which is pretty great for a pitcher.
sorry for the duplicate comment
Only on pace for 120 IP because he’s been injured. I’m not saying Beachy deserves it, just that its not a clear cut finish, as Beachy should accrue 3-3.5 WAR this season at current pace
If Beachy hadn’t lost a month to injury and had he pitched well during that month, it would be a much closer race, I agree.
Espinosa has a 3.3 war already. He is definitely a clear cut winner
Kimbrel has a much better shot at ROY than Beachy. If he ends up at 45 saves, or especially if he manages to get to 50+, the voters are going to have a hard time not picking him, I feel/fear.
^^This.
Or the guy with better rate stats and equal counting stats, Freddie Freeman, who is coincidentally also carrying a playoff team offensively.
All the comments above ring true. Espinosa and the three Braves.
With advanced stats, Espinosa is the clear winner.
If you ignore the limited contribution a reliever can provide, Kimbrel has been the most dominant of the four.
If you ignore positional context and a huge difference in defensive quality, Freeman could be the winner.
If you count part of season as dominant enough for a starter, Beachy has a shot.
Given history and assuming current stats project forward, I’d go with Kimbrel – Espinosa – Freeman in that order of finish, even if WAR has Espinosa ahead by a good margin. Feliz won in the AL last year…
Assuming their second half performances are much like the first half, or if the award were handed out today, I totally agree with Todd. I think the voters will be swayed by his gaudy saves, K’s, and ERA.
Dave I disagree with your logic about Gardner. The Lee and Greinke trades underscore your point that expesenive elite starters tend to bring in smaller hauls than expected. The problem is that for argument to have merit, one would have to surmise that if the yanks traded Gardner, they would get a better haul than what the royals got for greinke or the Seattle/Philly got for trading Lee. I simply don’t see a scenario where that exists. If an alternate universe existed where the yankees sucked and were in rebuilding mode, I don’t see them getting more for Gardner than what those other teams got for Lee and Greinke.
Sure, because team controlled years and undervalued skills, Gardner is an extremely valuable player and a spot in the top 50 is merited if we were judging the “50 most valuable ball players today”. But that isn’t what’s being judged. What’s being judged is how valuable a player is as a trade commodity. That said, no matter how you slice, Weaver and Hamels are much bigger trade assets.
Danny Espinosa has spent his whole career, college and minors, as a shortstop. This is his first full year at second base – ever. That’s why he’s got a great arm for a 2B.
Jeffrey Gross: Espinosa is the very clear NL ROY. Look at Fangraphs’ WAR chart for rookies. Espinosa’s WAR is 50% greater than Kimbrel and Kimbrel has Beachy beat by a nose.
Except for the fact that beachy missed a lot of first half time. I’m not saying Beachy deserve it, just that its not a clear ct finish, as Beachy should accrue 3-3.5 WAR this season at current pace
Espinosa already has 3.5 WAR (I think – might be 3.2 or something)
Just because Weaver is a slightly better player than Gardner (though I’m not sure I agree with that, given how much more easily pitchers get hurt) doesn’t mean he’s worth more in trade. If Team X would trade Gardner for Weaver, it’s because they’re essentially placing winning now over actual trade value. Most teams would not do that.
I know that my Red Sox would not trade Ellsbury, a very comparable player to Gardner, straight up for Weaver.
How do you know this?
Ellsbury has almost two more WAR than Gardner, and his wOBA is 50 points higher while playing very good defense at a more demanding defensive position. He and Gardner are not ‘very comparable.’ Gardner is basically the definition of a poor man’s Jacoby Ellsbury.
I mean how do you know that the Sox wouldn’t trade Ells for Weaver. I’m guessing they would…
Yeah I was responding to the original comment that said Gardner and Ellsbury were ‘very comparable,’ which I don’t think is the case. I’m not so sure the Red Sox would trade Ellsbury for Weaver. I think I’d bet that they wouldn’t, but they would think long and hard on it. I think the Yankees wouldn’t even think twice before trading Gardner for him.
Now of course I understand that this isn’t the point of the article. In this scenario we’re taking the teams’ specific context into account.
Hamels and Weaver have more perceived value because they are better players in general, but also play for teams where their performance is perceived more closely to team’s success than Gardner. This perception is not a reality though. If a team is trying to win for a single year then they would be willing to pay more for Weaver and Hamels than they would for Gardner. However, if it is a team like the Royals, Pirates, Mariners, A’s, Blue Jays, and every other team that won’t neccesairly compete for a WS this or even next year Gardner is a much superior play than either Hamels or Weaver. Think about it, Gardner is going to give a team 5 WAR at LF or CF with elite defense, plus baserunning (SB% most likely an aberration) and a very dangerous leadoff hitter until 2014. All of this at a cost equal to or less than what you would be paying Hamels or Weaver until 2012 and then any extra money or prospects that they would have to pay for acquiring another pitcher of that level. The difference between the Gardner’s and the Hamel’s and Weaver’s of the world in 1-2 to WAR per year and for the Hamel’s and the Lee’s to have a much higher rate of getting injured. Any team that is looking beyond a short term future would always take Gardner as the better for the development of their team and would pay more in prospects.
While this is true, people seem to think that only 2-3 teams compete for the World Series every season.
By definition there will be 8 playoff teams every year, and several others who will be very much in the thick of the race until September.
There could be 10-12 teams looking to load up for a playoff run.
Of course a team that is not close to contending would prefer Gardner. But what about the rest of the teams that are contending? That’s all I am saying.
I think it’s pretty silly to say that a guy like Espinosa or Gardner has a higher trade value than a guy like Jered Weaver just because more teams can afford to trade for him, and he’ll provide more surplus value. Even if only a handful of teams could realistically trade for Weaver, he would still command a higher premium than those guys.
Maybe this series should be re-titled “2011 trade value rankings if a player could be traded only to small market teams.” Because I guarantee you the Angels/Phillies/Dodgers would get a better return for Weaver, Hamels, or Kemp than any of the teams listed so far would get for their guys ranked 46-50.
It does not make sense to not account for contract terms in valuing a player. In the real world, even contenders will pay less for a player who is a 2 month and the playoff rental vs. a player who has a year plus left on his team control. A good example would be what Mark Teixeira fetched for the Rangers v. what the Braves got for him when they shipped him to the Angels. We can argue about how much Weaver or Hamels should be discounted due to the short remaining time of team control, but it’s hard to say there is not a discount.
As for Weaver v. Espinosa, it is particularly difficult to value Espinosa right now because there is not a consensus as to whether this year is a fluke. I suspect a lot of the skepticism is whether anyone believes he will be a consistent 4+ win player each year over the next 5. Dave maybe is taking the bullish side on his value, but he also is saying that anyone within 10 or so of the a place on this list arguably could be argued to be more or less valuable than someone in the same range above or below him. Anyone in 46 – 50 could be swapped on the list for any of the just missed list, depending on the eye of the beholder.
“On one hand, he’s the clear 2011 National League Rookie of the Year,”
You cannot be serious. Three guys on the Braves alone have a better claim than Espinosa.
Beachy – 2.94 xFIP, around the same as Verlander, Lincecum, Halladay, etc
Kimbrel – leads all relievers in WAR, has a 1.44 FIP, etc.
Freeman – Better rate stats than Espinosa, catching up in the counting stats, and slugging .560 since June 10, when the Braves are 19-8.
Freeman would be my choice, FWIW because he’s carried the Braves offensively at time.
Two words: positional scarcity. Freeman can enter into the race but he will have to surpass Espinosa, not just come close, in the counting stats.
Right now this is a two-man fight between Espinosa and Kimbrel. It will be decided by, unfortunately, the number of save situations Kimbrel is put into, how many he converts, and whether Espinosa can lift his batting average enough to satisfy the voters.
But for a writer like Cameron and a site like FanGraphs, the BA and saves are irrelevant. I can understand why in this context Espinosa is listed as the “clear” favorite.
Since June 10th (not sure of what use that is, but it’s your date), Espinosa is slugging .514 and the Nationals are 19-10 in that stretch. And he plays 2nd base. Well.
I have no evidence that I’d rely on that Freeman is either a good or bad defensive 1B…but it’s 1B.
xFIP on a 67 inning sample size…. Corey Luebke has a significantly better xFIP over 56 innings, you going to toss him into contention too? (I wouldn’t at this point)
The guy has gone past the 6th inning ONCE, and has a 3.21 ERA…. quite good but in this environment, 67 innings of that is not ROY worthy (yes I know conventional stats – but that’s what voters will be using).
I can easily see Freeman and Kimbrel in the conversation but maybe we should see Beachy cross the 100IP barrier before deeming him in contention.
The problem with Freeman is that while he might have similar offensive stats… a guy playing 2nd (well) vs a guy playing 1st (not well according to UZR, but that couple be a sample issue) is not really that close a call. Hence the 3.3 vs 0.9 WAR despite the similar offensive #’s.
Heck we can probably throw Wilson Ramos in the mix (1.8 WAR)
“Since June 10th (not sure of what use that is, but it’s your date), Espinosa is slugging .514 and the Nationals are 19-10 in that stretch. And he plays 2nd base. Well.”
Just because I looked up his last month the other night and knew those numbers off hand. I’m fully aware of the danger of arbitrary end points, but I chose the last month because Freeman has characteristically been a slow starter after each promotion he’s received. It seemed like he “got it” about a month ago so that is why I looked it up.
“I have no evidence that I’d rely on that Freeman is either a good or bad defensive 1B…but it’s 1B.”
Yeah, so far UZR hates Freddie (-6) but generally he’s considered to be a good defender.
Either way, his offensive profile will be superior to Espinosa’s by the end of the year and he’ll have done it as a 21 year old for a playoff team. Forgive me for thinking that’s more impressive than Espinosa posting a good, but baserunning and defense heavy, WAR in his age 24 season after barely maintaining his rookie eligibility with 120 PAs in 2010.
I guess if it was “Most Impressive Rookie” then I could be swayed.
Espinosa gets 3.5 runs from UZR and 2.3 from UBR. Where do the other 2-1/2 wins come from?
“his offensive profile will be superior to Espinosa’s by the end of the year” — And you know this to be a fact? Not sure how you could.
Also, the position does matter. Maybe even to the voters.
However, you may be onto something from the voter’s perspective about the ages. It would explain how Berroa beat Matsui in the AL in 2003.
“his offensive profile will be superior to Espinosa’s by the end of the year” —
“And you know this to be a fact? Not sure how you could.”
It seems like a common sense prediction considering Freddie’s upward trend, the equal wOBA despite starting really slow, and the current slight edge he enjoys in triple slash. Z
Here’s Freddie:
.276/.347/.459
13 HR. 43 RBI
.352 wOBA
Espinosa:
.242/.333/.460
16 HR, 52 RBI, 12 SB/2 CS
.352 wOBA
ZIPS predicts Freddie will have a higher wOBA by the end of season, though not by a lot (.348 to .338). It may not be a huge difference, but I think it’s a pretty safe statement to say Freddie will outperform Espinosa for the ROS.
“but I think it’s a pretty safe statement to say Freddie will outperform Espinosa for the ROS.”
Actually this is not at all a safe statement. To predict any two random players performance’s over a three month period is pretty much a crapshoot, and you are dealing with two players with very limited track records to boot.
Let’s do a blind comparison between the following two players, Player A and Player B. Player A has a .352 wOBA to date and is on pace for 79 runs/ 28 HR / 92 RBI / 21 SBs. This player plays a much more demanding defensive position than Player B – and plays it at an above average level – while also producing above average offensive stats relative to other players of the same position. This player has accumulated 3.3 WAR in 2011.
Player B has a .352 wOBA to date and is on pace for 69 runs / 23 HR / 76 RBI / 4SB. This player plays a much less demanding defensive position than Player A, and is average defensively. Player B’s numbers offensive numbers are below average numbers for his position, relative to the competition. This player has accumulated 0.9 WAR in 2011.
Now, can anybody say with a straight face that that Player B is more valuable than Player A in 2011, all things being equal?
kid: I hope not. Thank you.
Also worth noting: Espinosa still has a BABIP of just .274. Part of that might be swinging for the fences, but I gotta figure he’s just as much “recovering from a slow start” as the Freeman fans think Freddie is.
I really disagree with the whole Gardner vs Weaver scenario.
I completely understand the logic that due to contract status Gardner has more time to produce on the field wins over dollars paid out than players like Weaver and Hammels and that because of this your average MLB team is going to be more interested in Gardner than in Weaver.
The problem with this logic is that it kind of sounds like someone saying that a Rolls Royce is not worth $100,000 because your average person would not pay that amount for a car. The fact remains that a players value is not what your average team is willing to pay but rather what the highest bidding team is willing to pay. There is only one Jered Weaver and as such there is only one buyer, not 29 buyers.
Players like Weaver and Hammels can have a huge marginal impacts on a team in a playoff race, and this is something that players like Gardner simply do not have. For teams looking to maximize ROI there are plenty of options available, plenty of Gardner types, but for teams looking to actually win there are far fewer options. Teams built on ROI can be good and cheap but in this league if you want to win eventually you have to stop caring about how many wins you are bringing in per dollar and just start looking at how many wins you can bring in irrelevant of the cost.
Lastly I also have issue with the uncertainty level of a lot of players. We can even use Gardner vs Weaver as an example again. While Weaver is only going to give you 1 1/2 seasons and 2 post seasons of value Gardner can bring you another 3 1/2 or so (I think). Now obviously 3+ seasons are better than 1+, but realistically there is much more time for Gardner’s level of production to drop. The same goes for these half season rookie wonders. It’s far too easy to start penciling them in for a level of production that may never happen, where as these players with limited time left on their contracts are much safer bets.
This – the Rolls analogy is a good one.
Actually, I don’t think the Rolls Royce analogy fits here. Dave is not arguing that Jered Weaver (the Rolls Royce) is worth less than Brett Gardner (the Audi). For this exercise, it doesn’t matter what teams would pay on the open market for each player because that is not the “value” he is discussing. He is saying that having the Audi for five years at a fraction of the Rolls’s price is better than having the Rolls for 1.5 years at a much larger price.
Essentially, he is arguing that the average MLB team would pay a higher price (money/prospects/players/etc) for the 5.5 yrs of the Audi than the 1.5 yrs of the Rolls. And I don’t know if those years are correct (or the Rolls/Audi comparison for that matter), but that isn’t the point. I just wanted to point out that that Erik/Nick are looking at “value” differently than Dave is in this exercise.
So essentially, Gardner’s strongest point of value is his prearb slarey, or the ability to get most bang for your buck? Say Gardner were in his second year or arbitration, would his value be essentially gone?
I am sorry to disagree with the premise that Gardner is extremely valuable, but a corner outfielder with minimal pop and great speed and defense just does not seem that valuable even at his price and length of team control.
I can think of 142 million reasons to disagree with you… although I’m under a longer period of team control at that bargain price.
And I’m not even as good defensively as Brett especially when I’m not playing at the Trop – where I managed to be ~15runs better per year over an 8 year period (vs the road). Career UZR/150 away from the Trop ~7.5
Gardner’s 11.7 WAR since the start of the 2009 season ties him for 10th among all Outfielders in the game – and he has played 1/2 a season less (1159 PA) then most everyone else.
He’s tied with Shane Victorino (1644 PA), and sits 0.2 WAR behind Josh Hamilton (in roughly the same amount of time since Josh was hurt – 11.9 WAR in 1177 PA for him). Granderson, Justin Upton and Carlos Gonzalez follow them on the list with WARs of 11.0-11.3
So, despite what ya think, he has been one of the top-10/11 outfielders in the game the last 2.5 seasons
I didn’t realize that, thanks for pointing it out. The best teams seem to build from the middle (C, SS, CF) to SPs and a few good RPs. Valuing a player who had been one of the best at arguably the most important fielding position near another player who is amongst the best at SP is certainly practical. Taking Gardner for an entire season is pretty easy to see, but think about it in the playoffs. Take the Braves for example. They need a left handed bat near the top of their order and McLouth stinks at CF. Gardner is worth more to them than Weaver.
Here is an idea, throw out an “honorable mentions” (maybe next year, maybe this year yet). You could all it #51-#75, in no real order.
I thought this conversation was amusing for two reasons: 1) Because most of the discussion was based around something that Dave clearly said this was not: about micro-situations because that would basically be impossible to aggregate and 2) The example that everyone is giving as the counter-example is much less black and white than many people have implied.
Would the Phillies trade Hamels for Gardner? It’s at least worth talking about. Now, I’m a die-hard Phillies fan who watched the Hamels carry us to a world championship in 2008. I also tend to be somewhat sympathetic to traditional baseball analysis. So I should lead towards “THE PHILLIES WOULD NEVER TRADE HAMELS FOR GARDNER” here.
But the question is pretty fair. Long term, of course the Phillies prefer Gardner. They probably won’t be able to resign Hamels, they are an aging team, have a hole in left field with no prospect ready to step in (and not an abundance of dollars to spend in free agency) and because of his profile (gets his value from defense, baserunning, and OBP) implies that the Phillies would get significant surplus value from him for the remainder of his team-controlled years (and maybe sign him to a cheaper extension).
Obviously, the question revolves more around the short term. And in that, I think there is a reasonable discussion. First off, if Charlie Manuel continues to play Ibanez (which he may) you should at minimum expect at 1.5 WAR difference in left (Gardner for Ibanez). If Ibanez continues to play as he has, and Gardner continues to play as he has, that could bump to 4.5. Obviously, that’s huge. If Mayberry is better than Ibanez (which he probably is) and he would potentially play, that makes this argument worse, but Mayberry really is a question mark. In terms of trading for an OF, the Phillies are at least saying they don’t have the money, and even the higher priced options don’t seem that appealing (Pence? Doesn’t excite me too much and probably won’t provide surplus next season).
Now, people have been arguing how the relatively value of pitching (aces in particular) increases in the playoffs. This is true. However, the Phillies have at least 3 of them. If you call Hamels equal to Lee (which I think is pretty fair- and my argument becomes more sound if you call him worse- which most probably would) then Hamels is the #3. Obviously, the relative value of a pitcher pitching more often in the playoffs decreases if you are the third starter. In the range of a games a world series winning team could play (11 – 19) so can expect the third starter to pitch between 3 – 5 games. Opposed to the #1 who could pitch 4 – 7 games. This is obviously a major difference and significantly detracts from the micro-argument.
Oh yeah, Vance Worley has been great (I know, SSS) and maybe there’s a 10-25% chance Oswalt gives them something (a little optimistic? Maybe).
Regardless, you could easily make the argument from a WAR perspective that the Phils would be better off.
What the kicker is, is based on this conversation and the gaps in perceived value vs. actual value, is that the Phillies could ask for more from the Yankees, who do covet a front end starter, and as many pointed out- they are few and far between- and presumably none available that project as well as Hamels for the next 2 years. And of course, the Yankees have deep pockets. So, could they take Ibanez back in the deal? Throw in another asset? Both? The apparently financial strapped Phils could walk out of the deal with financial relief, similar short term success chance, and more assets. Potentially they could parlay those assets/relief into another piece (a RH bat?).
If Gardner batted from the right side, this argument would be a lot more compelling. As it is, I defer to the stat heads that underrate handedness. (Honestly, they should break up Utley and Howard with Victorino, and that would do a lot to for their left-handedness problem. Rollins, Utley, Victorino, Howard, Polanco, whomever isn’t too bad.) It would be an interesting to see this as a study in game theory- as the Yankees making it to World Series against the Phillies would represent an unfortunate break for the Phils (CC and Hamels against the left-dominated Phils).
It would be nice to see Halladay and Lee throw with a plus outfield and ¾ + infield behind them.
Also, this doesn’t even get into the Michael Lewis/Billy Beane/whomever theory that the playoffs are a crapshoot- If that’s the case, the argument becomes arbitrarily simple. The Phillies have 8.5 game lead in the wild card. With this in mind, they would be wise to make a lateral short-term move that improved their long term outlook.
While I agree with a lot of what you say, I think this is an extreme case because (a) Raul has been one of the worst starting OF’s in MLB this year and (b) Charlie and/or RAJ have had an absurd reluctance to replace him (or at least platoon him). I would also think that, if they are willing, the Phillies will be able to upgrade at LF – maybe not to Gardner level – without paying too much and without downgrading the #3 starter slot from Hamels to Worley. Therefore, as a Phillies fan, I would rather have Hamels as my #3 SP in the post-season and an upgraded LF via trade or even some combination of Mayberry / Francisco / Ibanez than Worley as my #3 SP and Gardner in LF.
By the way, my comments above are not at all a critique of Dave’s rankings as my prior comment above shows that I think many (maybe the majority of) MLB teams would prefer Gardner to Hamels.
Dave, I think you maybe valuing Avila a bit too high and I say this as a Tigers fan. For example I know Ramos didn’t have the MLB track record at the time of his trade but wasn’t he generally considered to be a better catching prospect than Avila yet all he fetched was a reliever in a trade.
Why do you need to cite Bill Simmons at the beginning of this article? When I write philosophical treatises, should I cite Aristotle because he first developed that form of writing philosophy? When I (or anyone else) write an extemporaneous essay, must I cite Montaigne because his were the first examples? When I make a grocery list, do I have to say a little prayer to whoever first made an itemized list? (Perhaps this was Bill Simmons, since you cite him as the inspiration for your list.) Please, do not let Simmons’s mindless horde intimidate you into intellectual dishonesty. To give Bill Simmons credit for inventing the formation of a list of answers in ranked order of least to most appropriate obscures his own dependence on prior influences (both familial and media-related) and continues his illegitimate apotheosis as a sui generis intellect.
That depends, will Aristotle whine about it on Twitter??
I can’t believe Dave Cameron stole Bill Simmons’ idea again this year. Why won’t Cameron leave that poor man alone so that he can watch reality tv?
I am biased for sure, but Espinosa at #48 seems awfully low. Right now he is one of the better players in the NL (second at second in WAR) and he is only 24. Plus, no one in the game is better cost controlled.
Danny is going to be interesting (and hopefully fun) to watch going forward. You don’t see a whole lot of young guys with superior middle infield range and well above-average power. You also don’t see a whole lot of successful players with that kind of K rate that don’t walk a ton that remain good hitters. Toss in his propensity for getting beaned, a potential shift to shortstop because Desmond sucks, switch-hitting, and some pretty good speed, and you have an intriguing player.
I can see anything from a quick crash due to contact issues and some Utley-ish runs at NL MVP. Good luck, Nats fans, I’m rooting for him.
Am I the only person that thinks Alex Avila is Geovany Soto 2.0?
Espinosa has a really high crash probability as well. Although, if he’s for real…an equally high upside. So maybe the bottom end of hte list is fair
Gardner ahead of the names left off the list just doesn’t feel right. Justify it however you like. I remember when Carlos Gonzalez wasn’t good enough for this list last year and Fangraphs was pimping Nyjer Morgan in a similar fashion
No, you’re not. Dave even wrote “…there’s still some question as to how sustainable his current performance is…” about Avila.
Do you mean the Nyjer Morgan who’s accumulated 1.8 WAR in 175 PA’s and the Carlos Gonzalez who’s accumulated 2.2 WAR in 359 PA’s?
If we’re looking at the value of high-end pitchers with little team control left who are being traded to a team that wants to increase their chances in the playoffs, wouldn’t Randy Johnson make a prime case study? The guy had just come off a 7.7 WAR season and was traded for Freddy Garcia, Carlos Guillen and John Halama on July 31, 1998. And this was for what, 2 months? Neither Guillen or Garcia had played an MLB game yet, but from memory (please correct me if I’m wrong) Guillen was more highly thought of than Castro, Espinosa or Andrus. Both Garcia and Guillen were undrafted, but quality products of quality scouting by the Astros in Venezuela, which of course makes it even harder to compare to everyone’s favorite, Brett Gardener.
What it does illustrate is how player value is team specific and an attempt to encompass an “end all” average when you have diametrical opposites such as the NYY and KCR is, of course ,going to be a futile effort. Yes, there are specific situations where a team would value a Gardner enough to trade a Weaver, just like there was a situation where Seattle needed to fill the ARod gap, without falling off a cliff in starting pitching. Using this article as a general guide and then applying it to the circumstances of your team of choice will end your dissatisfaction with this article some of you negative ones are trying to make something it isn’t.
Side note – Was Garcia’s best season really his rookie year? wow.