Comments on: The Most Lopsided Trade of the Decade http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/ Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:42:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: exxrox http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-116554 exxrox Sat, 26 Dec 2009 00:25:47 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-116554 Agreed with steve shane...please take into account the players that the Indians received for Brandon Phillips in this calculation. Agreed with steve shane…please take into account the players that the Indians received for Brandon Phillips in this calculation.

]]> By: steve shane http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-116428 steve shane Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:45:58 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-116428 i doubt anyone will see this bc of the large # of comments but it has to be said that stadiums/leagues play a significant role in the effectiveness of a player. For example, Chris Young, is an extreme fly ball pitcher. The Ball Park at Arlington is not conducive to FB pitchers. PETCO park is conducive to FB pitchers..... thus you MUST take into account the fact that a team knows that a certain type of player would not succeed in a certain environment (whether that be a big city/ball park configuration/lineup...) when trying to gauge their overall value. to say the chris young was worth X WAR for the padres DOES NOT mean that he would have been worth X WAR for the rangers. also, to only account for the players values during their tenures for the respected ball clubs is VERY SHORTSIGHTED. lets say team a trades player X to team b for player Y. but team b trades player Y to team C for player Z. to only account for player X and player Y's values and not account for the fact that player Y netted player Z is just plain stupid, and why this is the case in this article is beyond me. i doubt anyone will see this bc of the large # of comments but it has to be said that stadiums/leagues play a significant role in the effectiveness of a player.

For example, Chris Young, is an extreme fly ball pitcher. The Ball Park at Arlington is not conducive to FB pitchers. PETCO park is conducive to FB pitchers….. thus you MUST take into account the fact that a team knows that a certain type of player would not succeed in a certain environment (whether that be a big city/ball park configuration/lineup…) when trying to gauge their overall value.

to say the chris young was worth X WAR for the padres DOES NOT mean that he would have been worth X WAR for the rangers.

also, to only account for the players values during their tenures for the respected ball clubs is VERY SHORTSIGHTED. lets say team a trades player X to team b for player Y. but team b trades player Y to team C for player Z. to only account for player X and player Y’s values and not account for the fact that player Y netted player Z is just plain stupid, and why this is the case in this article is beyond me.

]]> By: saj http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-116386 saj Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:06:44 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-116386 You just can't look at trades this way. It's all about the money, as we've seen for the past 2 off seasons. Teams often aren't looking for fair value in a trade, they just want to dump salary commitments and they will give away great talent for next to nothing. It proves nothing. Only $ equivalent trades can be examined like this. You just can’t look at trades this way. It’s all about the money, as we’ve seen for the past 2 off seasons. Teams often aren’t looking for fair value in a trade, they just want to dump salary commitments and they will give away great talent for next to nothing. It proves nothing. Only $ equivalent trades can be examined like this.

]]> By: JoeyO http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-116333 JoeyO Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:43:27 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-116333 Know this is really late now, but wanted to point out a couple major flaws in the process. First, it doesnt matter what team the player ended up playing for to get the value totals. If I traded Adam A for Bobby B and Casey C then immediately traded Bobby B for Danny D, you wouldnt value the trade as only Adam A for Casey C, Bobby B's value must be accounted for. And that brings us to the fact that all teams involved need have their own Win vs Cost value - the trades themselves cant be looked at as even Win/Cost sum. In the above, it would be the controlled value of Adam A against the controlled value of Bobby B and Casey C for one team and Controlled Adam A against Controlled Casey C and Danny D for the other. In the two trades mentioned in the comparison, this is what was actually swapped Cleveland paid 2 years of Bartolo Colon and 5 years of Tim Drew to get 1/2 year of Lee Stevens, 7 years of Lee (after extension), 8 years of Sizemore (after extension), 4 years of Phillips, and a big chunk of Mark DeRosa (through Jeff Stevens who was received for him) which then became Chris Perez and Jess Stevens. Lee was also traded for 6 years of Carlos Carrasco, 6 years of Jason Donald, 6 years of Jason Knapp and 6 years of Lou Marson. That is a gigantic haul for 2 years of Colon and 5 of a low-value Drew. And while their return value can be added up now, it will be another 8 or more years before we know the true return they got for Colon - its going to be paying off for many years to come. But, Montreal paid 1/2 year of Stevens, 6 years of Lee, 6 years of Sizemore and 6 years of Phillips for 1 year of Colon and 2 years of Tim Drew plus 2 years of Biddle, 1/2 year of Leifer and an injured season of Orlando Hernandez where he never pitched (once their Colon/Sox trade is accounted for). Their value is then dead at that point as the players played out their contracts or were released. Those two values for the respective teams will be very different. On to the other deal - we have San Diego paid 1 year of Eaton, 2 years of Otsuka and 6 years of Billy Killian for 6 years of Gonzalez, 4 years of Sledge and 5 years of Young. In this case, no one has been traded since so this is the same for the Rangers just in reverse. Only thing is this one isnt done yet. The Rangers can no longer collect any value, their side is dead. But whatever SD gets when they trade Gonzalez and/or Young will still be return from that initial cost of 1 year of Eaton, 2 years of Otsuka and 6 years of (never to reach the majors) Killian. Know this is really late now, but wanted to point out a couple major flaws in the process.

First, it doesnt matter what team the player ended up playing for to get the value totals. If I traded Adam A for Bobby B and Casey C then immediately traded Bobby B for Danny D, you wouldnt value the trade as only Adam A for Casey C, Bobby B’s value must be accounted for.

And that brings us to the fact that all teams involved need have their own Win vs Cost value – the trades themselves cant be looked at as even Win/Cost sum. In the above, it would be the controlled value of Adam A against the controlled value of Bobby B and Casey C for one team and Controlled Adam A against Controlled Casey C and Danny D for the other. In the two trades mentioned in the comparison, this is what was actually swapped

Cleveland paid 2 years of Bartolo Colon and 5 years of Tim Drew to get 1/2 year of Lee Stevens, 7 years of Lee (after extension), 8 years of Sizemore (after extension), 4 years of Phillips, and a big chunk of Mark DeRosa (through Jeff Stevens who was received for him) which then became Chris Perez and Jess Stevens. Lee was also traded for 6 years of Carlos Carrasco, 6 years of Jason Donald, 6 years of Jason Knapp and 6 years of Lou Marson. That is a gigantic haul for 2 years of Colon and 5 of a low-value Drew. And while their return value can be added up now, it will be another 8 or more years before we know the true return they got for Colon – its going to be paying off for many years to come.

But, Montreal paid 1/2 year of Stevens, 6 years of Lee, 6 years of Sizemore and 6 years of Phillips for 1 year of Colon and 2 years of Tim Drew plus 2 years of Biddle, 1/2 year of Leifer and an injured season of Orlando Hernandez where he never pitched (once their Colon/Sox trade is accounted for). Their value is then dead at that point as the players played out their contracts or were released.

Those two values for the respective teams will be very different.

On to the other deal – we have

San Diego paid 1 year of Eaton, 2 years of Otsuka and 6 years of Billy Killian for 6 years of Gonzalez, 4 years of Sledge and 5 years of Young.

In this case, no one has been traded since so this is the same for the Rangers just in reverse.

Only thing is this one isnt done yet. The Rangers can no longer collect any value, their side is dead. But whatever SD gets when they trade Gonzalez and/or Young will still be return from that initial cost of 1 year of Eaton, 2 years of Otsuka and 6 years of (never to reach the majors) Killian.

]]> By: Noel Loans http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-116251 Noel Loans Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:04:54 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-116251 Hi, maybe this entry might be off topic but anyways, Having gone surfing about your website and it looks genuinely cool. It's obvious that you know the topic and you seem fervent about it. I'm building a fresh web site plus I am struggling to make it look good, and present the best articles. I?ve acquired much at your web site in addition to I anticipate a lot more quality content and will be back soon. Thanks. Hi, maybe this entry might be off topic but anyways, Having gone surfing about your website and it looks genuinely cool. It’s obvious that you know the topic and you seem fervent about it. I’m building a fresh web site plus I am struggling to make it look good, and present the best articles. I?ve acquired much at your web site in addition to I anticipate a lot more quality content and will be back soon. Thanks.

]]> By: a's http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-65194 a's Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:45:04 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-65194 Cardinals: 2 years of Mark Mulder A's: 4 years of Kiko Calero 3 years of Dan Haren Daric Barton Brett Anderson Aaron Cunningham Chris Carter Dana Eveland 1 mediocre year of Carlos Gonzalez and 1 career year of Greg Smith 1 year of Matt Holliday - 2 years of Huston Street Cardinals:
2 years of Mark Mulder

A’s:
4 years of Kiko Calero
3 years of Dan Haren
Daric Barton
Brett Anderson
Aaron Cunningham
Chris Carter
Dana Eveland
1 mediocre year of Carlos Gonzalez and 1 career year of Greg Smith
1 year of Matt Holliday
- 2 years of Huston Street

]]> By: Jim http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-64945 Jim Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:23:53 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-64945 Well, extend-and-trade(like Santanna), should probably count. I.e. just count all the years of club control from the trade. That does bring up the money issue. Perhaps include the money the players were payed during the years of club control as a factor? Another example: the Soriano for A-Rod trade. Well, extend-and-trade(like Santanna), should probably count. I.e. just count all the years of club control from the trade. That does bring up the money issue. Perhaps include the money the players were payed during the years of club control as a factor? Another example: the Soriano for A-Rod trade.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-64888 Kevin Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:26:04 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-64888 One issue that I was wondering about is that some trades aren't zero-sum. Look at the Johan trade. The Twins traded one year of Santana for the Carlos Gomez pu-pu platter. But because Santana's extension was a requirement for the trade to go through, the Mets traded those players for seven years of Santana. The trade specifically generated the new contract. How do you look at that? One issue that I was wondering about is that some trades aren’t zero-sum. Look at the Johan trade. The Twins traded one year of Santana for the Carlos Gomez pu-pu platter. But because Santana’s extension was a requirement for the trade to go through, the Mets traded those players for seven years of Santana. The trade specifically generated the new contract. How do you look at that?

]]> By: Abun24 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-64887 Abun24 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:11:55 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-64887 Right, Santiago. Right, Santiago.

]]> By: lookatthosetwins http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-most-lopsided-trade-of-the-decade/#comment-64786 lookatthosetwins Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:59:01 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=3353#comment-64786 Yeah, I was going to make the same argument about Mauer, but decided against it as I thought about it a little bit more. I think it does make the trade a little bit better, as they were trading an expendable part, and not losing any value at the position. If they traded him and got awful production at that position, then they would be losing that value at the position, and the trade would be worse for them, at least for that one year. But it really depends on what you are talking about in terms of a lopsided deal. If you are thinking completely on the lines of value given and value taken in, then you don't count the players they are replacing or take into account the state of the team at that time. But if you are talking about how much this trade benefited the Twins, then I think you add Mauer's WAR for that year only. Yeah, I was going to make the same argument about Mauer, but decided against it as I thought about it a little bit more.
I think it does make the trade a little bit better, as they were trading an expendable part, and not losing any value at the position. If they traded him and got awful production at that position, then they would be losing that value at the position, and the trade would be worse for them, at least for that one year.

But it really depends on what you are talking about in terms of a lopsided deal. If you are thinking completely on the lines of value given and value taken in, then you don’t count the players they are replacing or take into account the state of the team at that time. But if you are talking about how much this trade benefited the Twins, then I think you add Mauer’s WAR for that year only.

]]>