MLB Trade Rumors Member Posts

 

bossmanjunior333's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded

No Profile Picture uploaded

Team:


Where from:


Favourite player:


Best team moment:


Interests:


Timezone:




bossmanjunior333's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To bossmanjunior333's Posts

 

 

To bossmanjunior333's last 5 rumours posts

 

To bossmanjunior333's last 5 talk posts

 

To bossmanjunior333's last 5 rumour replies

 

bossmanjunior333's rumours posts with other poster's replies to bossmanjunior333's rumours posts

 

25 Dec 2018 08:19:31
Ok....so take this with a grain of salt

Someone who posts on the SBN Rays blog said today "Sorry I am off topic, but my sources tell me the Rays are close to getting Kris Bryant from the Cubs. The Cubs need to clear money for Bryce Harper and repair their depleted farm system. WOW"

So, I honestly have no idea who this person is or whether they can be trusted. It's probably safe to say this is not true. I did a little "sleuthing" and I think this guy might work for the Rays fan experience department, so maybe there is some merit?

Either way, what do you think a reasonable package for Bryant would look like? You would think the Cubs would want some cheap major league talent back in addition to prospects. For this thought exercise, I will be referencing "surplus value" only to create a "ballpark" value for Bryant and any other pieces involved.

It's also worth mentioning some of the intangible variables that could affect Bryant's trade value. First off, Bryant is a Boras client and is thought to be unwilling to sign an extension. Second, Bryant is coming off of a injury and had surgery this offseason. Lastly, there is thought to be some tension between Bryant and the Cubs front office after his representatives filed a grievance for keeping him in the minors to begin the 2015 season.

Bryant is likely to be very expensive in his remaining three years of arbitration. He is projected for 12.5M by MLBTR and 14M by Cots. It's safe to assume he should cost around 50M in arbitration. Even then, if he averages 6 wins per season, he should still be worth a little over 100M in surplus value.

When news first broke in November that the Cubs could be willing to trade Bryant, Mike Petriello of MLB.com put together some trade packages. For Bryant AND Schwarber, Petriello suggested a package that included Pham, McKay and Honeywell.

Here is what I think a package could look like with a breakdown:

CHC: 3B Bryant, RP Pedro Strop

TB: INF Robertson, SP/1B McKay, SS Fox, SP Linares, RP Stanek

So the two main pieces of this deal would be Robertson and McKay. In 2018 Robertson enjoyed a break out year posting a 127 wRC+ and 2.3 WAR in 88 games, fueled by an uptick in power and improved plate discipline. Capable of handling any infield position, Robertson would immediately help fill the void of Bryant at the major league level. Only 24 years old, Robertson still has 5 years of control remaining and should be a very valuable asset, especially if he can maintain the improvements he made in 2018.

McKay is widely considered one of the best left handed starters and first basemen in minor league ball. Moving to a NL club would exponentially increase his value, as he would be able to hit as a starter and pinch hit on the days he doesn't start. Despite the below average wRC+ in his career, Bumgarner has already amassed 4.6 wins offensively, largely due to the positional adjustment. A pitcher that can come anywhere close to league average offense would be incredibly valuable, not to mention the ability to actually play the field as well.

Fox and Linares would add more talent to a weak minor league system. Fox has seen his stock rise recently after a very impressive AFL campaign and should be able to stick at SS, offering above average speed and defense up the middle. Linares gives the Cubs a young left handed starter with a mid 90's fastball and impressive upside.

Lastly, Stanek would help fill the void left by Strop in the bullpen. Regularly able to hit triple digits, Stanek had a breakout rookie year and excelled late in games and as an "opener" for the Rays. Strop is in the last year of his 3 year contract extension and would save the Cubs another 6.5M. This would give the Rays a veteran closer at the back of the bullpen, something they have reportedly been looking for.

bossmanjunior333

1.) 25 Dec 2018 23:32:33
The big draw for Harper going to Chicago is his friendship with Bryant. Trading Bryant would jeopardize that potential relationship.

Another factor you didn’t mention in Bryant’s case: he’s a fan favorite. Think about what it would have cost a team to trade for Madison Bumgarner after the ‘14 World Series. There’d be riots.

Bryant to the Rays starts with Blake Snell, and probably includes multiple other gut-punching pieces.

That’s not what is “fair” for the acquiring team, but this is what a team will reasonably demand for a fan favorite.


2.) 26 Dec 2018 02:33:15
I've read no such things. Bryant isn't making a ton of money (estimated 12.4 million in 2019) and trading him would not clear that much space. be realistic.


3.) 26 Dec 2018 04:26:00
Bryant to the Rays does not start with Cy Young Snell. That's silly talk. The Rays have enough good prospects to make a trade. Acquiring Snell for Bryant defeats the purpose for trading for him in the first place.


4.) 26 Dec 2018 14:17:28
I never said it was fair for the Rays. But it makes zero sense for the Cubs to trade Bryant unless they are blown away.

I think that would require Snell.

Also, it makes no sense for the Cubs to spend all that money on Harper if they lose Bryant’s offense in that lineup. This is a super one-sided idea.


5.) 26 Dec 2018 19:05:27
Ok. so the whole point of the this exercise was trying to determine what trade BOTH teams would agree upon, not an unrealistic trade from the Rays or Cubs perspective.

The Rays would never trade Snell right now and you could easily argue that Snell has just as much trade value as Bryant considering he is under control for an additional year and does not come with any injury concerns, something that cannot be said about Bryant. While Bryant's friendship with Harper and his "fan favorite" status do carry some intangible value, those variables are far less quantifiable than injury concerns, inflated arbitration costs, and unwillingness to sign an extension.

The Rays have a top 3 farm system in baseball and major league depth that they can trade from, they do not NEED to trade Snell to acquire someone like Bryant. The Rays have more than enough pieces to trade for almost anyone, including 5+ top 50 prospects and 8-12 top 100 prospects as well a very deep young bullpen and multiple expendable major league assets.

"I've read no such things. Bryant isn't making a ton of money (estimated 12.4 million in 2019) and trading him would not clear that much space. be realistic. "

Again, if you read what I wrote, this person is claiming to have "inside knowledge, " so clearly this information would not be freely available on the internet. Does that mean I believe this person, absolutely not. Not the point. Further, I did not start the rumor of Bryant being available to trim payroll. An ESPN report in November led some to believe that Bryant could be moved as part of an effort to increase the club's payroll flexibility this winter. While Bryant's salary for 2019 (12-14M) would not be inhibitive, he will get expensive very quickly, pushing 20M in 2020 and likely exceeding that figure in 2021.

Considering the Cubs have one of the worst farm systems in baseball, they could view this as an opportunity to restock the farm system. If the Cubs want to extend their window, they will need to make sure sure they have plenty of depth and talent in the minor league system on the way. This is why I think a team like the Rays, who have arguably the deepest system in baseball, could offer the Cubs a very deep, rich package.

I also think you might be underselling Daniel Robertson. He made huge strides in 2018 and looks like a perennial 3+ win player. If the Cubs could bring in Robertson and Harper, at the expense of Bryant, that should still be an net gain in expected wins.


6.) 26 Dec 2018 19:26:17
The biggest problem i have with this and 90% of your posts is you claim things to be close. where is your source? No one has read anything on any other site. Also ESPN is not a reliable baseball source these days. The whole thing about the Cubs be willing to trade Bryant they were open to trading anyone and listen to offers, but they weren't going to do and there haven't been any Bryant rumors about teams being in talks.


7.) 26 Dec 2018 19:49:01
"While Bryant's friendship with Harper and his "fan favorite" status do carry some intangible value, those variables are far less quantifiable than injury concerns, inflated arbitration costs, and unwillingness to sign an extension. "

It's more quantifiable than you think. Ask yourself, how often do large market teams trade away players who have won ROY, MVP, and helped them win a World Series. If your answer isn't "almost never", then you're lying to yourself. Bryant brings more fans to Wrigley himself than the entire attendance at Tropicana. I live in Cubs territory. They would riot if they traded him for anything short of a monumentally stupid return from the other team.

"they do not NEED to trade Snell to acquire someone like Bryant. "

None of this is about who is "needed", or farm systems. Literally, no one in Chicago will freaking care about your precious little farm system. Bryant will require the most absurd package we've seen in a long time, and for good reason.

"Again, if you read what I wrote, this person is claiming to have "inside knowledge, " so clearly this information would not be freely available on the internet"

Yes, I read your following words. But this is stupid. Every major reporter in Chicago has shot down the notion that the Cubs are interested in trading Bryant this winter. Every. Single. One. The ESPN article was quickly shrugged off and laughed at by Epstein. Your "inside knowledge" guy is blowing smoke out of his ass. Ignore him.

"Considering the Cubs have one of the worst farm systems in baseball, they could view this as an opportunity to restock the farm system. "

No, they wouldn't. They've made the playoffs four consecutive seasons, they look posed to do it again in 2019. A farm system would do them zero good right now.

"While Bryant's salary for 2019 (12-14M) would not be inhibitive, he will get expensive very quickly, pushing 20M in 2020 and likely exceeding that figure in 2021."

Are you serious? The Cubs' owners basically print money in their home. The Ricketts family owns billions of dollars worth of assets, and they are one of the most luxurious franchises in American sports. They can afford to pay Kris Bryant if they want. (And if they need to move money, they'll move less popular players with very little difficulty) .

"I also think you might be underselling Daniel Robertson. He made huge strides in 2018 and looks like a perennial 3+ win player. If the Cubs could bring in Robertson and Harper, at the expense of Bryant, that should still be an net gain in expected wins. "

Look, bossman, I love metrics as much as the next guy. But the cheese has literally fallen off your cracker if you think teams think this way. Bryant has more value, from both a player's standpoint and a business standpoint.

Also, expected wins? Even the most generous projection for Robertson vs. the least generous for Bryant has Bryant with almost 4 more wins in 2019.

The Cubs aren't going to trade Kris Bryant for your spare parts. It won't happen, and it's best to move along from this horrible silly take.


8.) 26 Dec 2018 20:08:11
You know what, forget it.

I said multiple times, a poster on the SBN Rays site claims to have an inside source. I do not. I also stated multiple times that I do not believe this person. Despite the fact that I did share some drinks with Andrew Friedman at a bar years ago and was almost hired by the Rays out of college, I do not have any inside source and have never made claims as such. Further, I have never proclaimed anything is close with any deal, I have literally no idea how you are creating this false narrative. Please feel free to cite anything you deem to be relative to these accusations. I agree that ESPN is not a reliable source but, again, I was merely citing the nexus of the said rumor that Bryant could be available.

The whole point of this post was to entertain the possibility that such a trade could occur and what it would look like. In that respect, you all fail.


9.) 26 Dec 2018 21:00:45
Good grief, the whole point if this "thought experiment" was to entertain something incredibly unlikely because some crazy person suggested it was going to happen. That's it. I was hoping people could look at this objectively and ascertain what a trade "could" look like, not get up in arms about whether such a trade "could" ever occur. So much for thinking people could actually do this.

I say injury concerns and arbitration costs are more quantifiable because they are. Injury concerns can be factored into projections and arbitration costs can be factored into surplus value.

"Literally, no one in Chicago will freaking care about your precious little farm system. "

If the Cubs are making moves to appease the fanbase and not doing what is best for the organization longterm, there is a problem. While most casual fans may not care about the strength of the farm system and the viability of longterm success, I am sure the organization does. The Cubs have a very smart and progressive FO.

"Every major reporter in Chicago has shot down the notion that the Cubs are interested in trading Bryant this winter. "

Reporters generally only know what the FO wants them to know and are often used as conduits to spread specific information.

"They've made the playoffs four consecutive seasons, they look posed to do it again in 2019. A farm system would do them zero good right now. "

A strong farm system is incredibly important to maintaining longterm sustainable success, regardless of how much money you have. Teams who invest all of their prospect capital in short term investments risk having their window close sooner than later.

"Are you serious? The Cubs' owners basically print money in their home. The Ricketts family owns billions of dollars worth of assets, and they are one of the most luxurious franchises in American sports. They can afford to pay Kris Bryant if they want. "

The Cubs are already over the CB tax threshold. There is a reason why team like the Yankees and Dodgers, who can basically print own money as well, do not want to exceed the threshold and pay exorbitant penalties. I highly, highly doubt the Cubs to not care about this. They most likely do care about keeping their payroll under the CB tax threshold, to think otherwise would be silly.

"Even the most generous projection for Robertson vs. the least generous for Bryant has Bryant with almost 4 more wins in 2019."

Projections are going to unfavorably project more positive regression with Bryant and negative regression for Robertson. Even if the strides Robertson made in 2018 are substantial, projections are still going to heavily factor in his performance prior to 2018. Similarly, Bryant will see a boost in his projection, because although he is coming off a a down year, injury and surgery, his performance prior to 2018 is going to heavily boost his projections.

"The Cubs aren't going to trade Kris Bryant for your spare parts. It won't happen, and it's best to move along from this horrible silly take. "

If you think Robertson, the second best pitching prospect in baseball, 2 top 75-150 prospects, and a young backend bullpen arm is "spare parts, " there is no chance we could come to terms on a reasonable package. Again, sorry for thinking some of you could entertain an unlikely hypothetical without letting your own subjective "fandom" get in the way.

Moving on.


10.) 26 Dec 2018 21:08:08
BATMAN, the whole notion of teams "listening to offers" leads guys like Bossman and other fans to think, "they are trading him. " It's kind of hilarious to read them go on and on about it.

"Listening to offers" usually means, we'll let teams tell us who they'd give, but we'd have to blown away. And it's a good tactic for sportswriters to find things to write about in the winter. It's no different than "Team X is interested in Player Y". Team X is only interested in Player Y if they can get Player Y at their price point. And they are only listening for offers they want to hear.

I'm about 99% sure that a package starting with Daniel Robertson won't get talks going with Theo Epstein. Bossman is off his rocker.


11.) 26 Dec 2018 21:39:01
Just when I thought we had moved on from our past transgressions, you continue with the person blows and continue to pander to your audience.

You also LOVE to create false narratives and engage in misleading rhetoric. Allow me to lay this out clearly for you, I do not think the Cubs are trading Bryant, I do not think this person is telling the truth, I have been following this game for a long time and understand the semantics of how trades work. I do not need this spelled out nor do I need someone telling me "how I think. "

Keep your childish insults to yourself and try to conduct yourself likes someone who actually has some intelligence and merit to offer.


12.) 26 Dec 2018 22:58:23
You know, you guys have been going back and forth for awhile now on multiple topics. You both sound pretty knowledgeable on the sport and pretty intelligent in general. And I actually like reading the debates.

I respect people that are confident, but I have a feeling some egos and stubbornness is getting in the way here.

On a side note, Did you know Chris Bryant was drafted out of high school in the 18th round by my Blue Jays? I just learned that Today.


13.) 26 Dec 2018 23:39:38
His name is KRIS. not CHRIS, you idiot! lol just kidding, and yeah, I secretly enjoy the debates too. I do respect "thestatbook" and I would hope he feels the same. It's ok to disagree and it's certainly ok to disagree passionately. I would rather get into a passionate argument with someone who has the opposite political ideologies than argue with someone who is indifferent.


14.) 27 Dec 2018 00:18:39
As long as you say something thestatbook can continue the conversation with, he will, you have yourself to blame for that. But you are wrong on what to start the package with Daniel Robertson is not a headliner in a trade. He is right Snell would be the starting point for the Cubs, as well as Honeywell, probably McKay, Fox or Solak, and one or two others.


15.) 27 Dec 2018 01:27:22
How is saying you’re off your rocker an insult? It’s plainly clear to every person here.

You really think the Cubs would trade their most popular player for a bunch of guys no one outside of Fangraphs or Tampa know? Those are spare parts for a guy who won the MVP just two years ago and is still in his prime.

Yes, teams consider their fans in moves. All the time. Tampa Bay just doesn’t because they don’t have any fans, so I understand how this is a surprise to you.

Why else do guys like Matt Cain get stupid extensions? Or Miguel Cabrera? It’s because of the fans. Those are stupid contracts for anyone. If teams didn’t care about the fans in the stands, Madison Bumgarner would have been moved months ago.

Growing up in Nebraska and having family who works in TD Ameritrade corporate (and having a Ricketts in governor’s mansion) I feel comfortable knowing the Cubs wouldn’t remotely entertain an idea that didn’t involve a superstar for Bryant. They also don’t care about the luxury tax as much as you think they do. Again, with your team’s cheap-ass owner, I can see the confusion regarding teams who actually spend money.

Teams will pay the cost if they keep winning. Example: Boston Red Sox. Bryant won’t be traded, and he certainly won’t be traded for that cost.

Don’t get all upset that people told you how ridiculous this was.


16.) 27 Dec 2018 01:38:59
For what it’s worth, I did suggest that such a trade would have to include Blake Snell. I defended that by suggesting Bryant’s value to the team as a fan favorite (not to mention his obvious marketability) .

You proceeded to parade your own intelligence, citing the drinks you had with Friedman and felt it necessary to let us all know you were almost hired by the Rays (a desperate attempt to defend yourself to a crowd turning on you) .

You’re another run-of-the-mill homer on this site. You can’t handle any argument that speaks against your beloved Rays. You just handle it by trying to piss farther than everyone, and then get mad when it doesn’t go well for you.

We tried engaging with you. Your arrogance got in the way of a decent discussion.


17.) 27 Dec 2018 01:50:03
The standard response from bossman is getting funny, as he’s said many times. Here it is: “smart FOs don’t do (fill in the blank), they (fill in with bossman’s idea) ”

It’s incredible for you to come here, treat everyone like you’re smarter, and that your way is exactly what “smart front offices” do, and then get mad at perceived insults.

You are literally so arrogant you think front offices do all the things you think of. I’m sure there’s a reason Friedman never hired you. You think too highly of yourself and your own ideas.

You’re triggered by every person not infatuated with your intelligence. It’s both adorable and infuriating.


 

 

19 Dec 2018 18:09:48
Rays remaining moves

TB: OF Sanchez (50FV), SP Baz (50FV), Fox (45FV), Linares (45FV)

MIA: C Realmuto

This package lacks a premier headliner like Kyle Tucker but is very rich in talent. All four prospects are on a similar trajectory and could impact the Marlins major league roster as early as 2020.

TB: C Zunino, 2B/3B Duffy

COL: SP Gray

With Realmuto on the roster, the Rays would look to flip Zunino to another club in need of everyday catcher. Duffy provides insurance at 2B and would be an option at 3B for 2020 if the Rockies are unable to extend Arrenado.

Sign DH Cruz for 1/15M with a vesting option (PA) for 2020

His agent has already said that Cruz thinks Tampa is the perfect fit for him but he is likely waiting to see if any better options present themselves, namely the Astros.

Sign RP Miller for 2/20M with option for 2021

Miller is a Florida native and currently lives in Tampa. The Rays give Miller the opportunity to close and lead a very talented young bullpen.

Sign Robbie Grossman for 1/4M

After being non-tendered by the Twins, the Rays could use the versatile switch hitter as a weapon against LHP in the outfield.

C Realmuto
1B Diaz/Choi
2B Wendle
SS Adames
3B Robertson
LF Meadows
CF Kiermaier
RF Pham
DH Cruz

C Perez
INF B Lowe
INF Choi/Diaz
OF Grossman

SP Snell
SP Morton
SP Gray
SP Glasnow

RP Font
RP Chirinos
RP Yarbrough
RP Roe
RP Stanek
SU Castillo
SU Alvardo
CL Miller

bossmanjunior333

1.) 19 Dec 2018 22:39:06
Both trades make sense. I think the price would have to come way down on Realmuto for that to be the return, though.

I don't see the Rays spending that much money, though. And I won't believe it until I actually see it.


2.) 19 Dec 2018 23:28:25
If you don't directly factor the 5M the Rays sent to SEA into the 2019 payroll, the Rays only sit at 46M right now. That means if you set the 2019 opening day payroll at 77M, same as 2018, the Rays have roughly 30 million still to play with. I think you would agree that with the addition of Morton and the connection they have maintained with Cruz and Realmuto, the Rays are "going for it" in 2019/ 20. Further, they are reportedly looking at adding a veteran closer, according to the local beat writer. What I have proposed is still under 70M.

The Realmuto trade is definitely a "bulk" trade. I just don't see them offering Franco or McKay as a headliner and it's already been reported that the Rays offered Sanchez for Goldschmidt. I could see the Rays offering the best aggregate value, but maybe the worst "headliner. "


3.) 20 Dec 2018 01:50:47
Your math is off. If it's 46M, then you'd be well over 70M after these additions.

46M + Cruz (15M) = 61M

61M + Miller (10M) = 71M

71M + Grossman (4M) = 75M

Realmuto (~6.1M) and Grey (~$2.3M) - Duffy (~2.6M) and Zunino (~4.2M) = 77.5M

Money for Encarnacion = 82.5M

You're over 80M. Cots Baseball Contract's projection puts them over 90M. That's without a veteran closer. That puts them over 100M. They've NEVER spent anything close to 100M.

So again, until they do it, I don't believe it.


4.) 20 Dec 2018 16:29:02
haha I have no idea what I was thinking. I'd like to blame it on being sick and being highly medicated. I have a minor in mathematics, making it even more sad.

The $5MM is accounted for in the budget as an expense and is not part of the "payroll". The Rays don’t work on a year to year budget, but a floating 3-5 year budget that if they spend less now they can spend it later or if they spend extra now they have to cut back in the future. So this does work against that in the books. This has been highly debated and it seems that this is the resolution we have come to.

Are your Cot's projections for 40 man roster at the end of the 2018 season? Typically, as I understand it, when projecting the "payroll, " aren't we generally just talking about the 25 man roster? I am just curious how you have them over 90 million without a close. Does that included everything else but the closer? Please provide a link if you can, I am curious to see this.


5.) 20 Dec 2018 17:46:44
1. No, Cot's is a projection for the current roster, taking into account Morton's salary.

2. The projections take into consideration players on league minimum contracts and projected arbitration salaries as well.

3. If you're going by Cot's current number of 55M (by the way, Cots, ran by Baseball Prospectus, is the best source for this info), and you add your numbers, you're already at 90M, that's before a closer.

4. Encarnacion's 5M is counted into the payroll. It's counted into the luxury tax, and the Rays were able to take it on because of "payroll flexibility", so for the purposes of this exercise, it counts as payroll.

5. As far as "who counts toward payroll", generally speaking, it's an aggregate of all the guys who appeared on the 25-man roster. I don't know what the exact figure is, but most teams pay a pretty standard average throughout the season of all the guys that rotate in and out of the major league roster.

6. As for how I got to that, I simply did the math as shown above. I took the 55M from Cots, added all your projected salaries, and then added a "veteran closer", who I'd guess will cost them 10-15M next season. That's over 100M after all the math gets complete. I just don't see it happening.


6.) 20 Dec 2018 23:03:14
Ahhh finally found it under "2018-23 payroll and tax tracker. " Totally forgot about the money they are sending to SF for Longoria as well. That probably accounts for some of the discrepancy. I always use the "mlbtraderumors" arbitration estimates as their formula/ methodology has proven to be very close to accurate. Thanks for the information though.

Also, you clear up some confusion, Miller is the "veteran closer" I was referencing. So that salary is already taken into account.

I was trying to keep everything under 80M, so it seems like my proposal needs some modifications. They could opt to trade for Jose Martinez instead of sign Cruz, they could sign a bounce back guy like Strickland or Parker to close games, and then obviously could just go with Heredia, making league min, over Grossman, The crux of the proposal was trading for Realmuto, adding a bat, and adding a reliever.


7.) 21 Dec 2018 02:39:13
Adding that caveat about Miller definitely clears up some confusion.

All in all, it's still over 90M as it stands. I just don't see it happening. Sternberg is way too cheap to pay that kind of money. And especially if he has to pay more to get his stadium, he won't.

Frankly, I think Charlie Morton is the most they'll do, and I bet he's gone by August when Sternberg wants his money back.


8.) 21 Dec 2018 02:42:47
Also, you don't want Strickland. The Giants could have gotten away with paying him less than 2M in arbitration this winter, and instead, they let him go.

That'll send signals across the league. If the Giants, who are looking for cheap depth, don't want a former closer at 2-3M, then most teams will opt to stay away.

He's a clubhouse nightmare. He ruined Michael Morse's career in that Bryce Harper brawl, he tanked his season punching a wall, and was a notorious pain in the ass in the locker room. For a team that puts up with Bumgarner and Samardzija, it says a lot they got rid of him.

You should loathe the day the Rays sign Strickland.


 

 

01 Dec 2018 10:39:59
Another trade I have been trying to work out the details on.

ARI: SP Grienke, 1B Goldschmidt, 30 million dollars

TB: 1B Bauers, SP Baz, INF Fox, RP Stanek

By my math, Grienke has around 10 million dollar surplus value with his contract currently as is. That includes the remaining signing bonus payments (9M) and half of the deferred monies (31.25M) that would automatically be the responsibility of the Diamondbacks. Currently, any team that traded for Grienke would be on the hook for roughly 97M, including deferred monies and 2M assignment bonus, leaving roughly 10 million surplus.

Goldschmidt is a much more straight forward case, as his surplus value stands around 30 million for one season of control.

The 30 million dollars included in the deal would cover 5 million per season over the remaining 3 season and then half of the deferred monies still owed, roughly 15.625M dollars.

This would bring the total surplus value closer to 60-70M, which would net the Diamonbacks a more substantial package in return.

Headlining the package would be Bauers, #43 prospects heading into the 2018 season, who would be able to immediately slot into the everyday 1B role for the Diamondbacks. Also included would be Baz, a back end top 100 starting pitching prospect, Fox, a 45FV middle infield prospect, and Stanek, a back of the bullpen arm and potential closer.

With the money covered by the Diamondbacks, the Rays would be adding roughly 31M in 2019 commitments, which is well-within their available budget. Although Goldschmidt would only be under control for one year, the Rays have top 1B prospects Lowe and McCarthy close to the major leagues.

bossmanjunior333

1.) 01 Dec 2018 15:12:21
Everyone altogether now: SURPLUS VALUE IS A FARCE!

Besides, this is a bad deal for the Rays. Giving up a ton of years of team control for a rental 1B (a market which is very saturated) and an aging SP isn’t a good idea for a small market team like Tampa Bay.


2.) 04 Dec 2018 07:48:01
Are you just going to continue to respond with this pretentious rhetoric every single time? I sure hope not.

Surplus value is not a farce, it's an inexact science in a field that does not exist, a nice little piece in a much bigger puzzle. No one is claiming, myself included, that you should take surplus value as gospel. I never once implied such and it's insulting to suggest I did so. Clearly, there are tons of unprovable assumptions involved in establishing the metric itself. Surplus value is a good place to start when trying to judge what it would likely take to get a player in trade, but it’s not gospel and shouldn’t be taken as such. There are secondary forces at play, as you boorishly pointed out. However, there is a reason why more informed and astute minds than ours continue to utilize applications of surplus value.

Maybe just stick to trade analysis and not your misguided inference skills.


3.) 04 Dec 2018 12:59:20
Only if you promise to stick to inference and not your misguided trade analysis skills.

Deal?


4.) 04 Dec 2018 14:38:17
lol that was kind of a dick response but i'll take it.


5.) 04 Dec 2018 14:49:41
You threw a similar quip in at the end of yours, so don't act so innocent.

But let's be honest: surplus value guys are like the "mangosteen" guys. you know the guys who try to con you on some pyramid scheme energy drink and they tell you it has "mangosteen" in it and all the great things it can do.

And they think everyone in the room will buy it. They think they sound super-duper smart by saying it. And how could you challenge anyone who sounds super-duper smart?

And in case you do challenge me, then we start invoking the nerds. "But Fangraphs says it! " (Or, "However, there is a reason why more informed and astute minds than ours continue to utilize applications of surplus value. ")

But the moment one guy in the room challenges mangosteen guy on the validity of his argument, on the backing of his argument, he acts super offended and defensive that anyone would dare challenge him. He uses words like "pretentious" and "arrogant" and "this isn't gospel" and "get some inference, dude! "

You're mangosteen guy, bossmanjunior. And that's okay. But like mangosteen guy, you'll be peddling weight loss supplements after you've exhausted your argument and lost all those willing to listen.


6.) 04 Dec 2018 15:22:09
As far as surplus value, it’s just a thought exercise by bored baseball writers trying to find topics to write about. Nothing more, nothing less.

It ignores so many important factors in player valuation that I can’t fathom anyone actually takes it seriously.

So telling me it’s laughable about an idea (that was an obvious exaggeration for rhetoric purposes) and the push your glasses up, wipe the snot from your nose, and say, “BUT SURPLUS VALUE! ” Is also comical. You based your argument on a pseudo stat. Congrats.


7.) 05 Dec 2018 12:00:13
Good lord, man. I keep trying to bring this conversation to a close and then you take it down another tangent.

So just because we disagree about the merit of a stat, I am all of a sudden a conman running a energy drink pyramid scheme? I have to give you some props on that creative analogy. This has honestly become tantamount to talking politics. You know that just because two respective parties disagree on an issue, it doesn’t unequivocally mean that someone is objectively ”right” or “wrong” in their position. It’s ok to disagree on political matters and it’s sure as hell ok to disagree on the merits of a baseball stat.

“…he acts super offended and defensive that anyone would dare challenge him. ”

This is literally the opposite of what is happening here. I am getting “offended” that you are inaccurately defining my position. You are getting “offended” that I am challenging you among a community that you have endeared yourself with. From a distance, however, it appears you derive more pleasure from insulting these people, continually. Rather than offer remedy, you offer contempt.

Which brings me to the underlying question…what do you suggest as a surrogate? Clearly, I am the pretentious one because I reference “fangraphs” and have developed personal relationships with multiple baseball writers, so please, please tell me how do you analytically assess trades? You are the “stat” guy of course, your judgement must be rooted in empirical, objective data, correct? I would just love a look under the hood.

“it’s just a thought exercise by bored baseball writers trying to find topics to write about…I can’t fathom anyone actually takes it seriously.  ”

I am amused how you continually pretend that estimating “value” is not a critical and imperative element in baseball. It clearly is. Teams do not sign players or execute trades based on just past precedence, gut feelings, and prejudices. They calculate and project the intrinsic value involved to the best of their ability. These teams do a better job than the public blogosphere is capable of, due to resources, but it is not a fruitless effort. There is merit. I don’t know how many times I can say this.

This is, and has been, my position. Calculate the objective “surplus value” based on projections, the linearity of cost per win, and prospect valuations, then adjust for other immeasurable variables. This seems like a simple practice. It’s an inexact science, but it’s a good start.


8.) 05 Dec 2018 14:15:12
Also,

"Teams do not sign players or execute trades based on just past precedence, gut feelings, and prejudices. They calculate and project the intrinsic value involved to the best of their ability. "

This is true for many teams, and true for many trades. But I also think you overestimate the use of value metrics.

While most GMS go into a trade knowing who they want and what they're willing to give, and most of that was developed by some value metric, it's not as if GMs are sitting at their computer assessing the value of every player mentioned. Go find stories of how GMs trade players. Sometimes it's done at the dinner table or while golfing or having a beer. Sometimes it's done face to face in a 4 hour meeting, sometimes its a 4 minute meeting.

Some GMs get blindsided by trade offers and simply accept the deal on the spot, because it looks too good to be true. Question: do you think Brodie van Wagenen spent tons of time looking into "empirical, objective data" regarding Justin Dunn when he traded him to Seattle? Probably not, to be honest.

If every GM used "empirical, objective data" to make their trades, you wouldn't have trades like James Shields for Fernando Tatis. Teams wouldn't trade Zack Wheeler for 3 months of Carlos Beltran. The amount of silly, nonsensical trades suggests that you're patting your own back way too hard thinking metrics completely rule the roost when it comes to trades.

Even the very "analytic-driven" teams have made horrible trades. Go look at how bad that Carlos Gomez trade turned out for Houston.

Moral of the story: stop thinking metrics are so intrinsically valuable that they can't be challenged. Again, surplus value is simply a metric based on a couple of things: scouting report (future value), WAR projection, and contract estimation. None of this is remotely "empirical" as scouting reports change all the time. And many, if not most, prospects do not live up to their ranking.

I see surplus value blindly touted in many corners of baseball forum world. And it's guys like you who bought the drink because it has mangosteen, and now you think it'll cure cancer, autism, diabetes, and help with weight loss. You've overstated it's value, you're in too deep, and you're hoping others will buy in because it's all you've got.


9.) 05 Dec 2018 14:48:19
One last thing, and this has more to do with the "empirical" data. and perhaps this gives you a greater sense of why I feel surplus value is nonsensical

Let's use Arenado as an example:

In another post, you said that Arenado only has $20M of surplus value. That is, after we take his projected WAR and his projected arbitration salary.

In other words, you're suggesting that Nolan Arenado is worth Corey Ray or Micker Adolfo ($20M in surplus value, according to Fangraphs), straight up. Anything above that would, in terms of surplus value, be more than enough. That's what surplus value says Arenado is worth.

We can both agree that it's pure and utter nonsense, right? We can both agree that if the Rockies trade Arenado for the 88th or so best prospect in baseball that Rockies fans would be right to burn down Coors Field.

Surplus value equivocates actual value with projected value. This is largely why it's a farce, I believe. Because Arenado's "value" to a team is so much greater than some prospect they could send over.

Or think of Madison Bumgarner. If we estimate a win at being valued at 10M, Bumgarner is expected to have 9M in surplus value. Are you suggesting that the owners are going to trade its transcendent star for someone like Anthony Banda? That's what Bumgarner is worth?

I promise you, even the most analytical front offices don't think this way. The Rays wouldn't trade Bumgarner away for Anthony Banda. They wouldn't trade him for Corey Ray. Why? Because Bumgarner's value to the team in many ways in unquantifiable. The fans these stars put in the seats, the clubhouse presence, the marketability and revenue coming from major network games.

Surplus value assumes all things are equal, when almost nothing in baseball is equal, and very little "value" can be objectively quantifiable. It's a farce. And I wish people would stop referencing it.


10.) 05 Dec 2018 20:40:15
"Clearly, I am the pretentious one because I reference 'fan graphs' and have developed personal relationships with multiple baseball writers, so please, please tell me how do you analytically assess trades? "

First off, I don't know if you were being intentionally ironic, or if that came naturally.

Second, I assess many of the things surplus value does not: positional availability, organizational depth (the Giants would value a top 100 prospect differently than the Padres or Braves), performance, etc.

Surplus value has largely been to take the future value and slap a dollar sign next to the guy. It's hardly "empirical" and it's most certainly not "objective". I realize I've simplified it to some extent, but this is largely what it boils down to.

So, in order to agree with the surplus value, you obviously have to agree with the scouting report.

I applaud Fan graphs for coming up with some "system", but if you don't see the flaws in it, and if you're calling surplus value "objective, as you have ("Calculate the OBJECTIVE “surplus value” based on projections" [emphasis mine], then you've clearly bought into the scam. You're not running the pyramid scheme. You're trying to sell all the crap you bought from them.


 

 

01 Dec 2018 10:08:42
Kiley McDaniels said something along these lines was a fair deal and made sense for both sides....

CLE: SP Bauer

TB: OF Sanchez (#47), 2B/3B Duffy, RP Stanek

Rays get another elite pitcher to pair up with Snell, Indians get a longterm option in the OF and an immediate upgrade on the infield and at the back of the bullpen.

bossmanjunior333

1.) 02 Dec 2018 19:43:25
Why would cleveland take Duffy with their infield completely jammed.


2.) 02 Dec 2018 22:22:55
Duffy would be an upgrade over Kipnis. They'd slide Ramirez over to 2B and use Duffy at 3B.


3.) 04 Dec 2018 08:22:18
Exactly. Plus Kipnis is at least capable in the OF.


 

 

13 Nov 2018 15:40:08
TB: 2B Joey Wendle and RP Chih-Wei Hu

LAD: SP Ross Stripling

With the Dodgers facing some financial limitations and with a plethora of starting pitching options on their roster, they could prefer a cost-saving upgrade. Their starting options are Kershaw, Ryu, Hill, Stripling, Buehler, Urias, Wood, and Maeda, 5 of which are set to make 80 million alone.

Wendle and Stripling are both entering their age 29 seasons after breaking out this past year.

Under control for 5 more years, Wendle finished the year with a 148 wRC+ in the second half and 3.7 fWAR overall. Wendle would give the Dodgers a classic lead off hitter and the type of positional flexibility that the Dodgers appreciate just as much as the Rays.

With four years of control remaining, Stripling was able to finally have sustained success as a starter after spending most of his time in the bullpen and at AAA since breaking into the majors. In the second half, however, he dealt with some leg and back issues that forced the Dodgers to leave him off their postseason roster.

In a vacuum, I think the trade makes a ton of sense for both sides.

bossmanjunior333

1.) 16 Nov 2018 00:41:36
I like it as far as value. It appears to be a pretty even deal. I'm just not sure there's room for Wendle on the roster though. I guess they could try and use him in a Kike Hernandez type of role. Chih-Wei Hu is a good kick-in to replace Stripling. Even though the Dodgers could potentially have some difficult roster decisions, I like the value of the deal for both teams.


 

 

 

bossmanjunior333's talk posts with other poster's replies to bossmanjunior333's talk posts

 

07 Nov 2016 01:39:27
Which trade makes the most sense

TB Jake Odorizzi for:

ATL: deal centered around Inciarte
ARI: deal centered around Peralta
TEX: deal centered around Gallo
HOU: one of Reed/ Tucker/ Fisher and one of Martes/ Paulino
MIA: deal centered around Ozuna.

bossmanjunior333

1.) 07 Nov 2016 03:01:50
Why did you repost this?


 

 

06 Nov 2016 06:31:41
Which of these trades makes more sense for Jake Odorizzi and the Rays in your opinion:

TEX: trade centered around Gallo
HOU: Reed/ Tucker/ Fisher and Martes/ Paulino
ARI: Peralta and a couple B prospects
MIA: trade centered around Ozuna
ATL: trade centered around Inciarte.

bossmanjunior333

1.) 06 Nov 2016 13:34:24
If I'm the Marlins I go after Ozuna, but I'm not sure any of these deals would really happen.


2.) 06 Nov 2016 22:40:33
Diamondbacks trade would be out if all others were on the table. Peralta is just not in the same caliber as the others.

Houston's would be attractive purely on quantity.

I think the Rays would want more assurance that Gallo isn't just another Mike Olt.

Ozuna and Inciarte are both good trades.

So really, any but Arizona and Texas.


 

 

 

bossmanjunior333's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

20 Jan 2019 08:36:01
Well, Belt has had 4 concussions in 8 years, so some might consider that to be a potential "issue" as the longterm effects of concussions are still somewhat unknown.

While Belt did not have a concussion in 2018, he did have season ending knee surgery. That won't "kill" his value but it should have an effect.

Totally agree about the park, however, Belt has surprisingly posted a higher wOBA at home in his career, so it's not entirely a park issue. However, players do typically perform better at home sometimes for less quantifiable reasons.

Again, we agree, it would probably take more than Fox. I don't think it'll be "too" much more, maybe another 45 FV prospect?

bossmanjunior333

 

 

Click To View This Thread

19 Jan 2019 11:16:57
As a Rays fan, I love Belt, but am also aware of concussion/ injury issues and his contract would be a little bit of an impediment, but I think they could afford him. Would be kind of funny to see Fox go back to the Giants. I wonder if the Rays would try and expand the deal to include Will Smith. They are still looking for a veteran arm in the back of the pen to accrue saves.

bossmanjunior333

 

 

Click To View This Thread

26 Dec 2018 23:39:38
His name is KRIS. not CHRIS, you idiot! lol just kidding, and yeah, I secretly enjoy the debates too. I do respect "thestatbook" and I would hope he feels the same. It's ok to disagree and it's certainly ok to disagree passionately. I would rather get into a passionate argument with someone who has the opposite political ideologies than argue with someone who is indifferent.

bossmanjunior333

 

 

Click To View This Thread

26 Dec 2018 21:39:01
Just when I thought we had moved on from our past transgressions, you continue with the person blows and continue to pander to your audience.

You also LOVE to create false narratives and engage in misleading rhetoric. Allow me to lay this out clearly for you, I do not think the Cubs are trading Bryant, I do not think this person is telling the truth, I have been following this game for a long time and understand the semantics of how trades work. I do not need this spelled out nor do I need someone telling me "how I think. "

Keep your childish insults to yourself and try to conduct yourself likes someone who actually has some intelligence and merit to offer.

bossmanjunior333

 

 

Click To View This Thread

26 Dec 2018 21:00:45
Good grief, the whole point if this "thought experiment" was to entertain something incredibly unlikely because some crazy person suggested it was going to happen. That's it. I was hoping people could look at this objectively and ascertain what a trade "could" look like, not get up in arms about whether such a trade "could" ever occur. So much for thinking people could actually do this.

I say injury concerns and arbitration costs are more quantifiable because they are. Injury concerns can be factored into projections and arbitration costs can be factored into surplus value.

"Literally, no one in Chicago will freaking care about your precious little farm system. "

If the Cubs are making moves to appease the fanbase and not doing what is best for the organization longterm, there is a problem. While most casual fans may not care about the strength of the farm system and the viability of longterm success, I am sure the organization does. The Cubs have a very smart and progressive FO.

"Every major reporter in Chicago has shot down the notion that the Cubs are interested in trading Bryant this winter. "

Reporters generally only know what the FO wants them to know and are often used as conduits to spread specific information.

"They've made the playoffs four consecutive seasons, they look posed to do it again in 2019. A farm system would do them zero good right now. "

A strong farm system is incredibly important to maintaining longterm sustainable success, regardless of how much money you have. Teams who invest all of their prospect capital in short term investments risk having their window close sooner than later.

"Are you serious? The Cubs' owners basically print money in their home. The Ricketts family owns billions of dollars worth of assets, and they are one of the most luxurious franchises in American sports. They can afford to pay Kris Bryant if they want. "

The Cubs are already over the CB tax threshold. There is a reason why team like the Yankees and Dodgers, who can basically print own money as well, do not want to exceed the threshold and pay exorbitant penalties. I highly, highly doubt the Cubs to not care about this. They most likely do care about keeping their payroll under the CB tax threshold, to think otherwise would be silly.

"Even the most generous projection for Robertson vs. the least generous for Bryant has Bryant with almost 4 more wins in 2019."

Projections are going to unfavorably project more positive regression with Bryant and negative regression for Robertson. Even if the strides Robertson made in 2018 are substantial, projections are still going to heavily factor in his performance prior to 2018. Similarly, Bryant will see a boost in his projection, because although he is coming off a a down year, injury and surgery, his performance prior to 2018 is going to heavily boost his projections.

"The Cubs aren't going to trade Kris Bryant for your spare parts. It won't happen, and it's best to move along from this horrible silly take. "

If you think Robertson, the second best pitching prospect in baseball, 2 top 75-150 prospects, and a young backend bullpen arm is "spare parts, " there is no chance we could come to terms on a reasonable package. Again, sorry for thinking some of you could entertain an unlikely hypothetical without letting your own subjective "fandom" get in the way.

Moving on.

bossmanjunior333

 

 

 

bossmanjunior333 has no Talk Replies