tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post2217514233915914735..comments2023-07-09T11:23:36.355-04:00Comments on On Baseball & The Reds: More on the Rolen dealjinazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-35518150102517507792009-08-06T13:03:28.052-04:002009-08-06T13:03:28.052-04:00According to Baseball America, Zach Stewart is the...According to <a href="http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=5969" rel="nofollow">Baseball America</a>, Zach Stewart is the second-best prospect acquired at the deadline, behind former Sun Devil Brett Wallace.jinazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-4662870370658989512009-08-04T17:11:39.580-04:002009-08-04T17:11:39.580-04:00spmancuso,
If that's true, then yes, I'd ...spmancuso,<br /><br />If that's true, then yes, I'd say it's a dead-on market even deal. Neat. :)<br /><br />I'm still not convinced that it is the direction the Reds should be going, because again, it is a trade for the now rather than the future. But the Reds (and some commenters) obviously think they're closer to contention than I do. <br /><br />FWIW, my power rankings at BtB are almost certainly going to rank the Reds 30th out of 30 teams when I post them tomorrow. Barring a blow-out win of epic proportions tonight. I just hope the Yankees aren't in first (very close between them & the Rays).<br />-jjinazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-79110119103329230662009-08-04T17:01:46.793-04:002009-08-04T17:01:46.793-04:00Word is now leaking out that the Jays may also be ...Word is now leaking out that the Jays may also be paying $4 million of Rolen's salary in 2010. That seems to make this an awfully close trade, even without taking into account the intangibles of "leadership" and "experience" that Rolen may provide to the rest of the Reds position players. Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-6662892083317137352009-08-04T16:03:06.226-04:002009-08-04T16:03:06.226-04:00...and by "Brian", I of course, mean Bra......and by "Brian", I of course, mean Brad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-26009124698761079532009-08-04T16:00:43.360-04:002009-08-04T16:00:43.360-04:00Thanks Sky. I’m sure you’re right and I’ve overst...Thanks Sky. I’m sure you’re right and I’ve overstated the paucity of Below 100 pitchers to make contributions in the bigs. I think my point is the same (as distilled by Brian in the next set of comments): Wouldn’t it be better to analyze these prospect-for-MLB-ers trades on a median value basis instead of an average value basis?<br />CTMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-60746526066114593402009-08-04T09:26:02.341-04:002009-08-04T09:26:02.341-04:00"I suspect the list of pitchers outside the T..."I suspect the list of pitchers outside the Top 100 list who have mande meaningful contributions is thin."<br /><br />Whoa! No way. Pitchers come out of nowhere all the time. Basically all pitchers in the Top 100 have similar expected future production, which sounds crazy, but with injury attrition and not living up to expectations, it's basically true. The value remains somewhat flat outside the Top 100. (The Top 100 is actually a pretty shallow group, as it's about three prospects per team. When you start including each team's Top 10 list, that's 300 prospects...)Skyhttp://www.beyondtheboxscore.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-44230002362203915712009-08-03T18:50:48.711-04:002009-08-03T18:50:48.711-04:00CTM,
A few things.
1. If you look at my analysis...CTM,<br /><br />A few things.<br /><br />1. If you look at my analysis again, you'll note that I think it was a fairly minor overpay. I rate it as the equivalent of 1 WAR overpay, which is all the value I allowed for Josh Roenicke in surplus (which my feeling is a conservative estimate). As trades go, that's pretty close to the mark. In fact, I acknowledged that it's within the margin of error for this analysis, so you can argue that it's a market-value deal. <br /><br />To put it another way, EDE for Rolen would not be a fair swap. Rolen's a much better talent, even after accounting for the salary difference. So the prospects are needed to sweeten the pot, especially given the money that was also sent. The question is how specifically you quantify their value. Wang's work offers one of the first solid estimates of those players' values. It's early in this field, but his estimates make sense to me.<br /><br />2. Some of what you said implies you're just disagreeing on how we value Stewart. He was a B- at the beginning of the year by Sickels, and his performance this year justifies a "B" rating given his age, that he's starting now (or was, rather), and reached AAA. I have seen similar ratings by others (and I am not including him on the top-100 list, though some have). But it's fine to disagree on his value--doing so, however, has no bearing on the methodology being used, which you're simultaneously arguing against.<br /><br />3. Wang's (and others') methodology assumes that teams have a set payroll that they can afford to spend, AND that they will spend to that amount every year. Therefore, the question isn't how much you spend. The question is how you spend that money. When we say someone has surplus value, that means that if teams have that player on their roster, he'll contribute more than you could reasonably expect a free agent to contribute. So, if you have a team of all free agent-value players, and another team of surplus value players, both with the same payroll, the surplus value team will score (and prevent) a lot more runs.<br /><br />4. If you're acquiring AA prospects, you can expect that some of them, at some point in the future, will contribute a certain amount to the team. The estimates come from how much players of this sort will generally contribute when making slave-wages, plus (iirc) a discount for it taking a while to arrive. It's also worth noting that we typically assume that the money saved by the cheap player will be invested to make the big-league club better (i.e. teams spend to budget). This is why the Marlins aren't good--they have tons of surplus value, but even so they just don't invest enough into the team to make it a good team.<br /><br />What I'm not hearing from you folks is any kind of alternative way to value prospects. The only thing I'm hearing essentially sounds like assuming they have no value. And that's obviously not true, or teams wouldn't make trades for prospects. So how would you go about estimating their value? Half what we're using? 1/4th? What's the empirical justification? I'm happy to hear such arguments, but just complaining you think we're overvaluing them isn't advancing the conversation much.<br />-jjinazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-69358919813901077132009-08-03T09:45:07.104-04:002009-08-03T09:45:07.104-04:00Jon-
I think that's right -- Pittsburgh will ...Jon-<br /><br />I think that's right -- Pittsburgh will be an interesting study, even moreso than the Marlins because Pittsburgh hasn't really acquired the A Level talent (in trades) that the Marlins obtained when the dealt for HanRam and Maybin.<br /><br />That having been said it made/makes more sense for Huntington to have executed on the Marlins/Rays strategy because of where the Pirates were on the success cycle (i.e. off it). <br /><br />The Reds, on the other hand, probably have something like a 6:1 shot at the NL Central next year, and so making these small but real upgrades really make a lot of sense. If the Reds can get into the mid 80s wins next year, it likely leads to increasing attendance/viewership and Rolen pays for himself.<br /><br />CTMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-77895392854479297092009-08-02T17:23:26.640-04:002009-08-02T17:23:26.640-04:00"If Wang’s approach were sound, the best “sur..."If Wang’s approach were sound, the best “surplus value” strategy that a team could employ would be to always trade their stars and always acquire prospects with 6 years of control. The problem there is that you’d always be 20 games out of first, with the best AA team in baseball. You’d be the Marlins, who every 7 years or so get lucky when the stars align and they have an incredible core of pre-arb MLB-ers. But it’s defeatist because the one certain thing we know about pre-arb guys is that they will reach arbitration and then they’ll have to get dealt for the next package of Andrew Millers and Anabel Sanchezes."<br /><br />I agree with this conclusion. You have to spend more money or else be an outlier like the Marlins. Unless the Reds find 10 or 20 million somewhere, they'll be hard pressed to find success. The likelihood of them finding that money is very slim, which makes the prospect route seem more viable, but you can also end up wasting a 5 year cycle if your "small batch" of quality prospects don't work out and you don't have 100 mil. That's why Pittsburgh is all in for quantity and you can now look at them the very same as the Marlins and perhaps Rays. <br /><br />We'll see if they find success before the Reds - what havoc that would cause in Cincinnati!Jon Bachmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18368021303827489257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-40972469440016202242009-08-02T12:51:36.936-04:002009-08-02T12:51:36.936-04:00J-
First off, I want to reiterate how much I love...J-<br /><br />First off, I want to reiterate how much I love your site. I’ve lurked around on it for years. Your work almost makes it fun being a Reds fan.<br /><br />My understanding of the Wang analysis is from his THT piece on the Santana trade last year (here: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-bright-side-of-losing-santana). <br /><br />I think it’s a great bit of analysis, and furthers the discussion, but I still think that he’s overvaluing future pitching prospects. He more or less admits as much.<br /><br />Here’s my main point of contention (which is somewhat related and somewhat different than Wang’s): Roenicke and Stewart were traded precisely because they’re at their peak value right now. <br /><br />I didn’t see either of them on any major Reds Top 10 prospect list, which means it is unlikely that either pitcher was one of the Top 100 pitching prospects in baseball. I suspect that the list of pitchers outside the Top 100 list who have made meaningful contributions to MLB rosters is thin.<br /><br />Jocketty, to his credit (and I never thought I'd be typing that), recognized this and traded on the high. And even if they’re both in the B/B- class (I contend that they are not, and that their “upside” is a B/B-), there is still a 1-in-4 chance that both washout and never meaningfully contribute to a MLB roster. <br /><br />If Wang’s approach were sound, the best “surplus value” strategy that a team could employ would be to always trade their stars and always acquire prospects with 6 years of control. The problem there is that you’d always be 20 games out of first, with the best AA team in baseball. You’d be the Marlins, who every 7 years or so get lucky when the stars align and they have an incredible core of pre-arb MLB-ers. But it’s defeatist because the one certain thing we know about pre-arb guys is that they will reach arbitration and then they’ll have to get dealt for the next package of Andrew Millers and Anabel Sanchezes.<br /><br />Since that strategy would necessarily produce an undesirable Marlins-like outcome, the analysis must be wrong. The flaw is the “straight” analysis of the minor leaguers fails to add big enough cost for the uncertainty of the prospect. This is even more so with minor leaguers pitchers. The prospect-dealing club always has to overpay (on "dollar surplus" standpoint) to account for this extra risk.<br /><br />CTMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-17431587080825061862009-08-02T09:23:25.158-04:002009-08-02T09:23:25.158-04:00CTM,
Thanks for the detailed comment.
With respe...CTM,<br /><br />Thanks for the detailed comment.<br /><br />With respect to the value placed on the pitchers--a single league-average season by a player making league minimum is worth roughly 8 million in surplus value. So, I'm rating Stewart as if he will do one of those seasons. That's because, on average, a player like him will do that. As you said, the variance is huge. Some will put together much more value, while some will provide zero. But the average performance is the equivalent just shy of one average season (as a starter).<br /><br />I think that's a pretty conservative projection for the guy, and one grounded in Victor Wang's data. It almost sounds like your alternative suggestion is to assume they'll provide zero value, which seems far to "conservative" to me.<br />-jJustinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-13504661428754578092009-08-01T14:00:53.173-04:002009-08-01T14:00:53.173-04:00Justin-
I love your work, but is just adding up t...Justin-<br /><br />I love your work, but is just adding up the value a fair way to analyze the trade? I think that you (and most of the saber-community) is significantly over-rating Roenicke and Stewart because the bias is to kill Jocketty for acquiring the proven veteran at the expense of young arms and cheap production (I know it was mine when I first looked at it). But the "straight" calculations are too linear and don't really accurately reflect the true merits/demerits of the deal.<br /><br />The variance on the predicted production of 2 minor league pitchers is much greater than the variance on guys like EE and Rolen, isn't it? A linear analysis equates Roenicke and Stewart’s future value with the same confidence interval as Rolen and EE. That’s not true though. Because of sample sizes, we can much more accurately predict EE and Rolen’s future value than Roenicke and Stewart. Indeed, minor league relievers’ statistics tend to have the least predictive value of any minor leaguers’ stats. <br /><br />On a related point, isn't it safe to say that any minor league system ought to be able to spit out a Josh Roenicke every year or so (e.g. Jared Burton, Nick Masset, Danny Lee)? If so, what is really the harm if you occasional give up one or two of these guys to upgrade from EE to Rolen. It seems to me that the absolute worst case scenario is that you blow a few extra million on that year’s free agent reliever out of the Rhodes / Weathers class.<br /><br />Lastly, I’d put the odds that Roenicke and/or Stewart are significantly effective pitchers in 2011-13 at roughly the same odds that Rolen continues to produce at an all-star caliber level for the next 1.5 years, and so the Reds offer him arb and get either 2 picks or one more positive value year out of the guy. On top of all that, Rolen may like it in Cincinnati and sign a below market deal to stay.<br /><br />The more I look at this deal, the more I think Jocketty improved the 2010 Reds at very little cost to the budget, and the cost of MAYBE having to overpay for 1-2 middle relievers on the 2011-13 Reds. That seems like quite a nice trade.<br /><br />-CTMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-49778341116117880772009-08-01T13:43:39.929-04:002009-08-01T13:43:39.929-04:00Good points on the k-rates, and all around as alwa...Good points on the k-rates, and all around as always. <br /><br />Since this season's more or less in the can, I have no problem with trading Arroyo given that he's so overpaid. Hopefully they could replace him at better value on the free agent market this fall. But I absolutely agree that this seriously cuts our pitching depth. It's a deal a competing team might make--but that's not what the Reds are.Justinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-42293507567637898662009-08-01T09:43:00.219-04:002009-08-01T09:43:00.219-04:00I think the reason Stewart's K and BB rates ar...I think the reason Stewart's K and BB rates are all over the place is because he was used as a starter in A+ and AA ball this season, but he's been a reliever everywhere else. The rumor is that they put him back in the bullpen in AAA to manage his innings, but the intention was to convert him to a starter over the long-term. His numbers definitely look impressive as a starter.<br /><br />Now you have to wonder if trading Stewart means it might be too risky to trade Arroyo or Harang since they don't have the pitching depth to fill in. Travis Wood is the only true starting prospect in AA or above. And with Volquez having a setback yesterday, I'm not sure trading a young starting pitcher really made sense.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08493717107262478265noreply@blogger.com