2011 Trade Value: #25-#21
#50-#46
#46-#41
#40-#36
#35-#31
#30-#26
This is the point where it got really tough to put players in particular spots. Every team in baseball would love to have every guy on the list from here on out – the warts are now much more minor or the potential is so high as to make it seem like a risk worth carrying. Even in this section, you’re looking at some of the best young talents in baseball. If you want to move a guy a few spots up or down here, I won’t begrudge you at all. These guys are all very, very good.
Rank – Player – Position – Team – Past 3 Calendar Year WAR
#25 – Ubaldo Jimenez, SP, Colorado: +16.4
Compared to last year, Jimenez’s fastball is down nearly 3 MPH and his ERA is up over 4.00, but in reality he’s not pitching all that much worse. The spike in runs allowed is about runner stranding, and his peripherals are pretty much in line with his career norms. There would be a bit less demand for him this year than last, but teams will still look at Jimenez as a young front-line starter. Toss in his insanely team-friendly contract ($21 million over the next four years if both team options are picked up), and even without the premium fastball that he had last year, the Rockies would still be able to command a ransom for Jimenez.
#24 – Stephen Strasburg, SP, Washington: +2.6
By far, the hardest player to put on this list. Some teams would still value him as a top 10 guy, while others would take every other guy on this list and a few dozen more before they took Strasburg. Both the risk and reward markers on him are off the charts. On one hand, he could end up as the next Mark Prior, offering nothing but false hope and becoming a story of what-could-have-been. On the other hand, Tommy John surgery is hardly a career-killer, and if he’s back on the mound next spring, he could easily be the best pitcher in baseball in 2012. He doesn’t offer much in the way of 2011 value, but he’s not a long ways off from contributing again, and the upside is just too high to ignore.
#23 – Tommy Hanson, SP, Atlanta: +9.0
Hanson isn’t quite as good as his career 2.99 ERA would indicate, but even if you factor in some regression going forward, he still projects as one of the best starting pitchers in the National League. At 24, he’s shown significant improvement this year, and is now using his stuff to it’s full potential. He still throws too many balls to be a true ace, but he’s not far off from that, and there’s still room for growth. Still in his pre-arb years and under team control through 2016, Hanson is a terrific combination of present and future value.
#22 – Jay Bruce, OF, Cincinnati: +9.5
While Bruce might seem like something of an enigma, it’s worth keeping in mind that he’s only three weeks older than Danny Espinosa, and he already has nearly 1,800 career plate appearances under his belt. There has been a learning curve, to be sure, but Bruce has settled in as a good player already, and he still has the physical tools to become a superstar. There just aren’t many players with his athleticism in the outfield and his abilities at the plate. The long term contract he signed with the Reds will pay him just $48 million over the next five years and should buy out most of his prime years, so any team trading for Bruce would not only get a good player with star potential, but get one at a bargain rate as well.
#21 – Mike Trout, OF, Anaheim: -0.1
Yes, he’s still basically a prospect with no proven success in the big leagues, but Trout is not your average prospect. He’s the epitome of a five tool player, only he’s developed at years beyond his age. While he might not yet be ready for stardom in the big leagues, it’s worth remembering that guys who destroy AA-ball at age 19 usually turn out to become good big league hitters. When those guys are also center fielders with enough speed to be elite defenders and add a lot of value on the bases, you’re looking at a guy who could be the best player in baseball. There’s really nothing wrong with Trout beyond a lack of MLB experience, and yet he’s still good enough to start for a number of Major League teams right now. Few players offer as much future value as Trout, and the Angels won’t have to wait much longer for it to start paying off in the big leagues.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I think this a perfect spot for Strasburg, Dave. With Tommy John’s success rate, I think it may even be a tad bit low. Since he has the potential to end up as #1 on this list, a team would be smart to buy low in the hypothetical universe, should Rizzo take some bad acid one day and put him on the market.
I don’t think any pitcher (especially with an army injury history) should be #1 on a list like this…
I was a little surprised to see him this low. I would think teams would recognize how successful Tommy John surgery has become and expect him to return to being one of the premier starting pitchers in baseball from 2012 onward.
There’s always the fear that he could end up the Mark Prior
*the next Mark Prior
Yeah or Brett Andersen. I guess.
Or the more obvious comparison, Francisco Liriano.
Agreed. I think anywhere between 16 and 25 is right for Strasburg, and I don’t quibble with his placement w/r/t the others in this section.
I wonder if we’ll see Yunel Escobar in the top 20. His contract boggles the mind – 4 years of a ~4 WAR SS for $20 million total. And two of those years are, and it seems almost silly to say this, Team options.
What do you guys think?
Probably, since it wouldn’t be all that shocking to see him become a ~6 WAR player in the future. Hinted at his 4.5 + WAR ability in Atlanta, and this year seems like a defensive outlier–yet he’s still on pace to put up something close to 5.5 WAR. Absurdly good deal for Alex Ant, trading away an old, flukish power hitter to a team making a playoff run for premium, contract-controlled talent.
It’s kind of unfortunate that your name is Nick, cuz it looks like I just responded to myself. I’ll be nick #2 from now on.
Trading for Escobar was brilliant, locking him up for 4/20 might be even brillianterer.
Yeah, that is confusing. I think AA has had an excellent tenure so far, whether it be the trade for Brett Lawrie, the wonderful extensions to Escobar and Bautista, the ridding of Vernon Wells. The one error in my mind was his flip of Mike Napoli and Juan Rivera for Frank Fransisco. What?
Between the two of you Nicks, one of you has got to be able to tell the rest of us how AA’s nuts taste.
Why am I not surprised to see more Blue Jays fans talking about AA when it has nothing to do with the post. Just wait until Bautista’s name comes up at least.
if AA was smarter maybe he’d have enough money to compete in the AL East
Ahh, the inevitable Yunel-AA jerk fest that occurs in every comment thread in the series…
I don’t see you rebutting the points, just basically saying I think highly of AA. I’m a Yankee fan anyway, guys. It’s not like I’m exclaiming proudly about the 4th place Blue Jays. I’m just saying, for the relatively shitty roster and situation he inherited, he’s done pretty well. Disagree?
Escobar didn’t make the cut. His on field value would justify his placement, but he comes with significant off-the-field concerns, which is why the Braves essentially gave him away in the first place. Those things might not matter to fans that much, but his reputation in the game certainly hinders his trade value with other teams.
Yeah, you forget about that sometimes. Suzyn Waldman (the Yankees unbearable color lady on the radio), said, in so many words, that Jose Bautista was moved to 3rd base partly to kick Escobar’s lazy ass. Is that truly one of the reasons?
Disappointed…..
q________________q
Don’t be disapointed for two reasons, the first would be that AA has shown he can trade as well or better than anyone in the business, the second would be the Jays have a 3-6 WAR SS locked up at between 1/4 and 1/3 of market value.
Really? I’m surprised that the off-the-field concerns played that much of a role in his ranking. It’s not like he’s Milton Bradley who has worn out his welcome in multiple cities. Perhaps the off-field concerns are just a mismatch of personality. Yunel is a flashy player who had limited exposure to North American lifestyle. The Braves clubhouse culture was deeply conservative and no-nonsense.
I’d rather see a pattern of behaviour across more than one team before I label someone as an “off-the-field” problem. Certainly, the Jays currently don’t see him as a problem and I offer his new contract as proof.
Nick, if Suzyn Waldman truly said that, then she is an incredible idiot. Anyone who has spent any time at all looking at the Jays would recognize the 3B has been a black hole of suck for the Jays this year. Bautista has temporarily moved to 3rd because he can play that position and the Jays have a couple of young OFs who can play OF (sort of, in Thames case). Once Lawrie is called up, Bautista will go back to RF.
Dave, don’t you get the feeling that the opinions about Yunel Escobar have changed since he’s joined the Jays? From everything I’ve read (and not just Toronto biased reports) the off the field issues were overblown and not entirely a result of Yunel’s behavior.
Maybe next year he’ll make it on.
” but he comes with significant off-the-field concerns, which is why the Braves essentially gave him away in the first place.”
I thought that was because they didn’t understand the concept of sample size or career years and decided to go with “veteran leadership”.
When I think of “off the field concerns” I generally think of Manny Ramirez or Milton Bradley. Not Escobar. It’s a matter of semantics for Escobar – when he makes a mistake it was because he was “lazy” or he’s “not focused”. Which, really, is a bunch of nonsense.
I’m not really for or against Yunel on this list, I just think it’s an odd way to describe Escobar. Or at least as the reason for his exclusion.
Are you kidding? I’m not even going to bother reading the rest of this if that’s your reasoning.
It’s trade value Jays fans. Whether his reputation is just or not, it still lowers his trade value for a number of teams that wouldn’t want to risk finding out if he really is a cancer or not.
And let me remind you of how his career in Atlanta (supposedly the team he dreamed of playing for when he grew up) went. He was a model citizen for his first year and a half, to the point where people were complimenting him for his craftiness how hard he played. Then things started to unravel to the point where he was screaming at the official scorer for giving him an error and hardly hustling at all. It was an egregiously bad trade by Wren to get rid of him for the price that he did, but it is certainly conceivable that GMs aren’t sold on him after just a little over a year of good behavior.
“significant off-the-field concerns”
Unfortunately this is the first time I can remember giving you -1 for a comment Dave. The logic you present just isn’t sound.
While it was certainly true Escobar didn’t fit in at Atlanta, there have been no such reports since he’s been in TO. Any Jays game I’ve seen he actually looks pretty upbeat and happy to be there, much more so than any number of other guys.
To me it’s clearly a case of a square peg in a round hole with him in Atlanta. I don’t think this would have been the case in the majority of other clubhouses across the league.
First time I’ve even remotely caught a whiff of some racist undertones on this site. Not too impressed with your reasoning here Dave.
How about this play from earlier in the year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP-oaX5x3q0
That’s the epitome of Escobar maturity level right now. Million dollar talent but 10 cent head.
I’m not going off published media reports, racism, or anything else perceived from the outside. I’m going off multiple conversations with people in baseball. Whether you guys like it or not, he has a terrible reputation in MLB, which is why the Blue Jays got him for 10 cents on the dollar, and no other team got in their way.
Frank says:
July 15, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“First time I’ve even remotely caught a whiff of some racist undertones on this site. Not too impressed with your reasoning here Dave.”
******
Your comment makes sense only if you are asserting that MLB teams don’t have any problem with Escobar that affect his trade value, and that Dave is incorrect in believing so.
I’m very anxious to get more info on how you know that Dave;s assessment of how MLB offices view Escobar is incorrect.
@ Dave
Citing conversations with anonymous inside sources doesn’t really add much credibility to what you’re saying.
I’m not a huge DC fan, but this is ridiculous. If you don’t want to believe that someone that writes about baseball for a living has sources that he can’t or won’t identify, get the hell out of here. Is Dave really going to say “Assistant GM XY told me Yunel is a complete dickhead” just to make you happy?
Jason says:
July 15, 2011 at 4:59 pm
@ Dave
“Citing conversations with anonymous inside sources doesn’t really add much credibility to what you’re saying.”
Actually, if Dave says it it has credibility, just as it has credibility if said by Gammons, Heyman, Rosenthal, etc., because it’s coming from someone who does have depth and breadth of contacts and information.
Now if this were Bleacher Report (or you or I) citing conversations with anonymous inside sources, it would add no credibility.
@ frank
Wtf
@Frank Where is the racism? I can’t see it for the life of me.
“Escobar didn’t make the cut. His on field value would justify his placement, but he comes with significant off-the-field concerns, which is why the Braves essentially gave him away in the first place. Those things might not matter to fans that much, but his reputation in the game certainly hinders his trade value with other teams.Wow, what a shocking comment.”
Ok, so now realizing that some of you guys do actually weigh intangibles like, in this case a poor attitude, why won’t WAR have any of that? Surely there is a subjective way to value these “other tools”.
@Sultan. The reason why WAR doesn’t weigh those intangibles is because of the argument that NOBODY should weigh them. The fact that anyone who makes decisions does weigh those intangibles means that everyone making evaluations has to as well, even if the stat they use to weigh players doesn’t.
@Nick
The racism is that for every white player with “off-the-field concerns,” there are 10 minority players viewed that way.
For example, Michael Young threw a fit and demanded a trade this spring, but I haven’t heard anything about it or his off-field issues since.
Has anyone heard the term “clubhouse cancer” used to describe a white athlete in any sport? I can’t think of anyone, but I would love to know if there’s someone I forgot about.
@JDB
John Rocker. I could name a dozen more, but you only asked for one.
JBD, I agree that there are many instances where certain stereotypes are applied to players of particular races, but your post is way off the mark. There are numerous players considered “cancers” in the NHL, and the majority, if not all of them, are white. Your point about Michael Young is completely irrelevant in regards to this series.
Good call on John Rocker and Jeff Kent.
I suppose John Terry (the English soccer player who had an affair with a teammate’s girlfriend) is another guy I forgot about.
And I hadn’t thought about the NHL. (I don’t follow hockey.)
I don’t think bringing up the NHL makes sense here. It’s hard to honestly examine this issue in such a homogeneous league.
I do think Michael Young fits this discussion (that is, the discussion on racism and perception of players, not the discussion on trade value.) He may not be the most appropriate example because he has little history of bad behavior, but demanding a trade is exactly the kind of thing that gives players a bad reputation.
I would still like to hear any other examples of white players widely believed to have attitude problems, particularly in baseball, but also in basketball or football. If you can think of a dozen, I would like to know who they are.
JBD clearly doesn’t follow the STL Cardinals. Brendan Ryan and Colby Rasmus say hi. In the NFL you could look at Tony Romo or Jeremy Shockey. Or Ryan Leaf. Or Tony Mandarich. Etc etc
That should say JDB, sorry for the dyslexia
And the Giants gave Pierzynski an outright release one year after sending Nathan, Liriano, and Bonser to Minnesota to get him because they didn’t like his behavior and attitude.
Trout’s got to be the only “sub-replacement” level player on this list, no?
Granted, we’re talking about a week’s worth of games, but I found it humorous.
Harper will be N/A. It’s going to be crazy if he does not make the list while Trout does, and we already know that Cameron sees Harp as one of the best prospects ever from his post with something like that as a title.
I’d imagine Harper has to be in the next 5, right? I can’t see him being THAT much ahead of Trout. The beauty of Trout is that he’s this great prospect with huge upside and supposedly great makeup….but he’s also got an incredibly high floor. That’s rare in a prospect. I mean, barring injury, worst case for Trout is still like a 4 WAR player. He’s supposedly got 70 speed, is a great baserunner, and scouts rave about his defense in center. Combine that with the fact that he’s patient and gets on base, and it’s hard to imagine that there’s really much to lose with him. Now that we’re able to roughly quantify the impact of defense and baserunning, it’s pretty clear that a guy like that is incredibly valuable. Worst case seems like he’s Bourjos or Gardner, and those guys are still excellent players.
With Harper, he does strikes out quite a bit and supposedly still struggles with picking up and hitting good breaking balls. Those are legitimate flags. He also plays a less demanding defensive position (though there are rumblings they may try him in center). Granted, most people are confident he’ll work through those issues, and his upside is roughly Mickey Mantle, so I get the hype. But I think this position for Trout is pretty justified, and gun to my head, I think I’d probably lean ever so slightly toward him over Harper.
If Trout is 21, Harper would have to be in the 30s at the very least, so I imagine he belongs somewhere in the mid teens.
Trout’s only 19. But yes, I’m sure Harper is going to be in here. The consensus is that they are similarly regarded prospects (though in very different ways), and I believe Dave favors Harper very slightly, so I’d be shocked if Trout is in the top 25 but Harper’s not in the top 50. I would assume he’ll be in the next 10, and probably in the next 5.
“If Trout is 21,…”
baty was referring to Trout’s placement on this list, not his age.
Yeah, I predict Harper in the 16-20 range.
It’s interesting that Trout is kind of the chosen one out of the position player prospects… It’s no surprise that everyone drools over the deep and balanced package of tools, but I don’t know how i’d feel about even dealing Starlin Castro straight up for Trout.
a one dimensional player for a player with every tool imaginable
This sort of reservation is common — you’ve seen Starlin hit already. It’s still silly, though. Trout is more likely to play positive defense, he’s faster, he has a better eye, and he’s younger. Starlin has remarkable contact skills, and yes, he’s holding down a major league shortstop job, but that’s just not Trout. Sometimes you have to take that 25% bust risk (or whatever Trout is, probably lower) for clearly better upside.
Dear Angel Fans,
I’m a Mariners fan. We have a current surplus of starting pitchers, and more on the way. You have a surplus of starting outfielders, and more on the way.
We give you Michael Pineda and you give us Mike Trout. Both sides are happy! Whaddyasay?
Intriguing to say the least. I wonder who says no first.
Man…Maybe I’m crazy, but I think if I’m the Mariners I say no. There’s no such thing as a “surplus” of pitching, and Trout has yet to prove himself.
do a lot of CF not named Mays get to “prove” themselves in the MLB as a teenager?
Mariners could’ve had their cake and eaten it too if they’d just taken Rendon instead of Hultzen.
The rendon thing is a bit strange to me as an IF including Smoak, Ackley and Rendon would have likely been deadly 2014-17
Gordon – Exactly. Here are some phrases found in Keith Law’s scouting report on Hultzen: “doesn’t have the upside of the power arms in this class.”, “slider is fringy and less consistent”, “and he has but rarely uses a slower curveball”, “you can see a potential No. 2 starter” and “he’s still a probable mid-rotation guy who’s durable..”.
You can tell that I’m beaming with pride.
Dear (deranged) Mariners fan,
You’ve got yourself a deal. Of course we’ll also be requiring that young Ackley kid.
+1 for slipping in Ackley Kid
Dear Mariners Fan,
Mike Trout is not available, but we’re certain Vernon Wells is due for a career revival anytime now. We really like the guy, but believe he’d be a much better fit at Safeco.
Dear Angels Fan,
We’ll take Vernon Wells off your hands. Of course, you will pick up the rest of his salary and only receive one (1) Lucas French in return.
Sincerely,
lulz
As a Mariners fan ….
If I’m Jack Z. and Tony R. says “OK”, I hit the mute button while I send out for a bottle of champagne. If I’m Tony R. and I get the call from Jack Z., I hit the mute button on the phone until I can control myself enough to tell him it’s a deal if he throws in Smoak and Taijuan Walker.
Is David Wright not even going to show up in this? If he were traded just about anywhere he would instantly become a more valuable player because he wouldn’t be playing in the baseball equivalent of the grand canyon anymore.
When was David Wright traded to San Diego?
Maybe you’ve noticed that David Wright hasn’t been a great player since 2008 and has 1 year and $15 M left on his contract. If you think any team’s going to give up a lot to get him the Cards have a Kyle Lohse to sell you.
I’d think his wonky back would leave him off any “most wanted” asset list.
About 4 weeks ago I asked Dave in chat to settle a debate that had been raging on Braves message boards about Tommy Hanson’s trade value vs. Colby Rasmus. His answer was, to paraphrase, “Rasmus clearly has the advantage.”
Has that much changed in 4 weeks? A Rasmus cold streak and a Hanson hot streak later they’ve exchanged about 10 places in the trade value chart?
Where is Escobar? He’s really good and signed to a really good team deal. That deal was made by AA. He’s a really good GM btw.
Didn’t you hear? Cameron felt that the signing was stellar enough that it made Longoria’s deal look like Ryan Howard’s. As a result, he declared Escobar to be the unanimous #1 and is devoting the entirety of next week to the Yunel/AA love affair.
I gave you a +1 mostly for the name.
I still have to think that if, in some alternate universe, the Phillies were to put Roy Halladay up for sale, that they would receive better offers than Colorado would ever receive for Ubaldo Jimenez. Yes, MORE teams would be able to afford Jimenez than Halladay, and yes, Jimenez delivers some nice bang for your buck, thanks to his contract, but man, I just can’t really get past the fact that Roy Halladay is going to out-duel any pitcher on the planet in the postseason, and I have to think that is worth a lot, a whole lot. Halladay is one of the very small handful of players who turns a good team into a great team, and a great team into a World Series champion. So, while several more teams could afford Jimenez, I still have to think that the offers made for Halladay would trump the offers made for Halladay, despite the fact that there would be fewer teams involved in the bidding war process.
Maybe I would get past this hang up if this series were entitled “Bang for Your Buck” rather than “Trade Value,” although maybe not, as, again, I think that it’s worth a whole lot of money to have a guy like Roy Halladay who can take you to the promised land (not to mention guarantee a packed house for all games he starts). Halladay makes a ton of money and is nonetheless delivering insane bang for one’s buck. And how can we even quantify the impact that he has made on Cole Hamels? Or Vance Worley? How much is it worth to have a guy who makes such a significant positive impact on team chemistry that a player such as Cliff Lee is willing to leave tens of millions of dollars on the table just to sign with you?
I understand what you’re saying. And I agree that Halladay is a transcendent pitcher – an all-time great. However it’s hard to make the case that Roy Halladay is more valuable to a team than Ubaldo Jimenez + $15 million/yr. A team could buy another 5 or 6 WAR player with the money they’d save by picking Ubaldo.
First off I agree 100% with the main premise of your post. I dont think theres any way that Colorado gets more for Ubaldo, than Philly gets for Halladay if they are both put on the block this year.
It doesnt really matter that perhaps only a handful of teams could afford Halladay (when he gets in his mid 30’s), because the teams that *could* would pay a huge ransom for him. NO question about that in my opinion.
however i guess you didnt watch that little shindig last October that we call the “Word Series ”
=================================
“I just can’t really get past the fact that Roy Halladay is going to out-duel any pitcher on the planet in the postseason, and I have to think that is worth a lot, a whole lot. Halladay is one of the very small handful of players who turns a good team into a great team, and a great team into a World Series champion.”
=================================
jk, as a Giants fan i just couldnt resist
I think what might be getting left out in the evaluation of holiday (and I don’t want to assume I know Dave’s entire process) is his perceived status as the best pitcher in the game. I think that adds a nontrivial amount of value to him if he were to become available, compared to say Zack Greinke or even Cliff Lee who are comparably excellent pitchers but don’t have that aura of best pitcher in the game. This is a phenomenon you see in all kinds of markets. Item’s gain a boost in value and prestige when they are perceived to be “the best”. Even if it’s only marginally more valuable than the next closest thing.
Halladay*
Robbie- I tend to agree, with you, but I also think Doc is a really tough one to gauge under the parameters of this article because of the advanced age. It’s hard to really place him in this neutral context where we know nothing else about the imaginary team that would be gauging player X’s value. Would the Red Sox give up more for Halladay than Jimenez? No question. Would the Pirates? I don’t think so, no. The combination of advanced age (he’s much more worthwhile to a win-now contender) and sizable salary make Halladay a tough case. Depending on the franchise, he’d either get a king’s ransom or very little interest. On the other hand, I think just about every team in the league would have some degree of interest if Ubaldo were on the market.
Like I said, more teams would involved themselves in this theoretical bidding war for Ubaldo Jimenez, because all teams can afford to pay Jimenez’s salary, whereas only so many teams can afford to pay Roy Halladay’s salary. However, the point that I was making is that, while fewer teams would be involved in a Halladay bidding war, the ransom received for Halladay would nonetheless be greater than the ransom received for Jimenez. Much greater, in my opinion. Therefore, Halladay has more trade value.
“I just can’t really get past the fact that Roy Halladay is going to out-duel any pitcher on the planet in the postseason”
It’s playing with absolutes like this that will tend to get you off-track, or to at least receive a gentle ribbing.
No matter how good one particular player is, you throw him up against his peers in the business on any given day, and there’s a good chance (40-45% and maybe more) that he’s not going to best that other player.
Halladay has already had a pair of postseason duels which constituted all-or-nothing for his club last year, and they were both won by your 2010 playoff MVP, Mr. Lincecum.
Wtf other Jim, this town’s full up on Jims already
Ah, there’s not so many…
Joey Bats top 10?
Uhh, yes. No lower than 3 I wouldn’t think.
Evan Longoria, top 40?
Wow, Escobar didn’t make the cut at all? I’m sorry but the reasoning behind the decision is quite disturbing. There is literally ZERO evidence to suggest Escobar has attitude problems, from everything we’ve read, it was a couple of guys that didn’t like his flair on the field and the media blew it out of proportion to justify a horrendous deal.
The Escobar attitude problems were well documented in Atlanta. As a Braves fan, I heard about it as he came up through the minors and continuing into his ML career. The attitude problems were easy to overlook when he was debateably the best player on a mediocre team in 09, but it rose to apalling levels in ’10. I’m not sure how much of it had to do with Cox, because Bobby didn’t even try to hide his disdain, which probably fueled the problems to higher levels. Esco desperately needed a change of scenery because it often looked like he didn’t care and wasn’t trying (especially on defense.) One play that sticks out is a lolligagged throw that nearly resulted in a broken wrist for Troy Glaus. The Braves were not putting up with that attitude. Frank Wren usually does well in trades (see Uggla, Dan for Omar Infante), but he utterly failed to get back anything of value in this trade. Seeing as he had another month before the deadline, it was somewhat clear that the offers weren’t there. I’m happy Yunel is succeeding for the Blue Jays, but if his becomes disgruntled, watch out.
Of course, there is a long line of players who didn’t like playing in Atlanta for Bobby Cox.
Random note for author of article. Your link for #35-31 does not work. You must have typed a 36 into the url. The link should be this: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2011-trade-value-35-31/
Just letting you know! Great stuff!
Blue Jays fans, this isn’t what should their value be, it is what they would actually go for in a trade. That’s why you can’t just take his WAR and salary and demand that he should have such great trade value.
I accept that reasoning, but it seems to be inconsistently applied. Is Dave really saying that Danny Espinosa would bring back more than Cole Hamels or Weaver? That particular ranking choice seems to be a case of using what a player’s value “should” be in a perfect world, whereas the Escobar omission is using the “would” standard. The same standard should be applied consistently.
A third of the league would have no interest in a highly paid ace with only 1.5 years left on his contract. That significantly hurts their value. Almost every team would be interested in acquiring a player like Espinosa because he provides present and future value.
I fully agreed. As usual in these lists, Cameron gave a vague enough definition in the first article that he could slide back and forth between the value as actually perceived by GM’s and the value that should be perceived.
In most cases, he seems to be using the latter but uses the former to underrate players at his own whim.
In spite of this defect, this is a very entertaining series, including the comments that it elicits.
surprise web: == www jordanforworld com====
very good web,believe you will love it.
FREE SHIPPING,accept pyapal
discount including evisu jeans,watches shirts,bags,hat and the decorations and so on
trust me!
Opportunity knocks but once
(1) I enjoy buying things from people who say “trust me!” in their sales pitch. You cannot go wrong there.
(2) I enjoy that Confucius wrote the last line. Possibly Yoda.
I remember when Escobar first came up he was considered a mediocre talent but had “grission” and the Braves put the full media hype train on him. Bobby Cox loved him. He stole 2nd base when a pitcher was lollygagging on the mound and it was the greatest baseball play in history.
Then he was poor with Braves for a little while and suddenly he’s the Cuban Ty Cobb.
Amazing what can happen when an organization changes their propaganda
It’s the Illuminati!!
Here’s your tin foil hat..must have slipped right off your head
Jeff Kent?
In this thread: More AA nutriding.
Anyone think Mat Latos is going to make the list? He and Tommy Hanson are very similar pitchers, only latos is a year younger….
…but not nearly as established.
Does anyone really think that Yunel escobar would bring back more in a trade than Eric Hosmer (also not in top 50). I’d like to see the argument, maybe that will stop some of the bitching from Jays fans.