2016 Trade Value: Honorable Mentions
Yesterday, we kicked off Trade Value Week with the introduction, which you should go read if you haven’t already. Along with a brief description of the concept and what we’re trying to accomplish — besides just having some fun during the All-Star break anyway — we also talked about the 20 players who failed to return from last year’s rankings.
Today, we’re going to kick off the list in earnest, with the 10 players who fill spots #41 to #50 coming in a few hours. But before we get to the guys who just made the cut, I want to dedicate some time talking about the guys who just missed, because in all honesty, there’s something like 75 to 100 guys in baseball that have a pretty strong case for a spot in the Top 50. With players this good, we really are splitting hairs, and which good player you prefer will depend heavily on your own preferences.
I know rankings always bring out division, and I am aware of the fact that there will be some people upset with the idea that Player X ranks #46 while Player Y didn’t make the Top 50, but I do want to emphasize that we’re dealing with very small margins here, and there are no objectively correct answers to the questions this exercise poses. I showed this list to a bunch of friends in the game, and their feedback was even more diverse than I expected.
Some thought there were too many pitchers; others thought there weren’t enough arms. It’s an impossible task to create a list that everyone will agree upon, and I expect many of you will make passionate cases for players who didn’t quite make the cut, but know that I probably won’t disagree with you much; there are a lot of very good players who teams would love to have, and the gaps between guys at the end of the list are quite small indeed.
So, below, we present the Honorable Mentions, the guys who just barely missed out on ending up on the list, and easily could fit on your personal Top 50. For the record, I’m not going to re-list the guys we covered that fell off last year’s list, since we already discussed them, but many of them were still close to making the list this year as well, so you can see that post and this one as a tandem of guys who were in the mix for one of the final few spots but just didn’t quite make it.
Marcell Ozuna, OF, Miami
Aledmys Diaz, SS, St. Louis
Wil Myers, 1B, San Diego
Stephen Piscotty, OF, St. Louis
Willson Contreras, C/OF, Chicago
Aaron Sanchez, SP, Toronto
Michael Fulmer, SP, Detroit
Brandon Belt, 1B, San Francisco
All five of these young hitters (plus the Blue Jays and Tigers emerging starters) are having excellent seasons, and if we just accepted that what they’ve done in the first half of 2016 is their new established level of performance, they’d all easily belong. But each has some history that makes it wise to not quite yet accept that this is what they’ll do going forward, and in the case of Ozuna and Myers, they churned through some of their service time getting to this point, so any team trading for them would be acquiring a guy a bit closer to free agency than some other breakout stars of 2016. Belt is a different case than the rest, but his back drop in strikeout rate is still a recent development, and he’ll need to sustain that for a bit longer to crack the top 50, given his age.
Brandon Crawford, SS, San Francisco
Kevin Kiermaier, OF, Tampa Bay
Adam Eaton, OF, Chicago
Kevin Pillar, OF, Toronto
As I noted in yesterday’s introduction, Andrelton Simmons fell off the list in part because he actually got traded over the winter, and the return was underwhelming to say the least. So, while one could make a pretty valid case for the overall value of the four players above, each of them rely pretty heavily on the acceptance of the value of their defense, and even a guy like Simmons (who everyone agrees is an elite fielder) didn’t bring back a high-level return. Crawford came extremely close to making the cut — he’s in that 50-55 group that bounced on and off the list right up until the end — but in the end, there just wasn’t enough evidence that teams will pay premium prices for glove-first players.
Byron Buxton, OF, Minnesota
Joey Gallo, 3B/OF, Texas
Dansby Swanson, SS, Atlanta
Orlando Arcia, SS, Milwaukee
Austin Meadows, OF, Pittsburgh
Tyler Glasnow, SP, Pittsburgh
Blake Snell, SP, Tampa Bay
Trea Turner, SS, Washington
This is a list of some of the game’s top prospects — or former top prospects, in the case of the two guys who have exhausted their rookie status — and guys who could storm up this list in the future, but might not have enough present value to create the kind of bidding war that some other players would generate. All of these guys look like they could become something special, but there’s projection left with each of them, as they need to improve on some core skill before they become a key part of a winning team. Long-term, you’d love to have any of these guys, but they’re maybe just not quite there in terms of present value in order to crack the 2016 Top 50.
Steven Matz, SP, New York
Aaron Nola, SP, Philadelphia
Marcus Stroman, SP, Toronto
Pitchers are always the hardest guys to rank, because their value can fluctuate so dramatically; on any given pitch, they could become nearly untradeable, and their performances can bounce around dramatically even when they’re healthy. At different points over the last year, you probably would have found each of these four somewhere in the the Top 50, but Matz’s bone spurs, Nola’s recent nosedive, and Stroman’s struggles (combined with a lost service year to the DL), make them somewhat risky buys at the moment. All of them are good enough to put these doubts behind them and solidify their place among the top tier of big league pitchers, but at this point, they haven’t quite done that yet.
Matt Carpenter, 3B/2B, St. Louis
Joe Ross, SP, Washington
Every year, I feel like I’m writing some kind of apology to Matt Carpenter, who is clearly one of the best players in the game, and keeps getting better each year. He’s an elite player who isn’t often treated like an elite player, and as one of my favorite guys in the game, I’d love to recognize him as one of the most valuable players in the sport. But, as a 30 year old, his value is mostly tied to what he can do for you in the short-term, and with a strained oblique that might cost him a decent chunk of the second half, that value just took a hit. He’s #51 on my list, as I tried and tried to get him on this year, but in the end, I just couldn’t do it. Ross also would have made the list if he didn’t just go on the DL; he may be fine, and the Nationals may just be resting him, but they did his trade value no favors by citing shoulder inflammation.
Clayton Kershaw, SP, Los Angeles
Yeah, I’m giving Kershaw his own category; he’s that good. Even at $33 million a year, Kershaw is a huge bargain, but his contract makes him all but untradeable. While the Dodgers didn’t give him a full no-trade clause, they did put a poison pill in the deal; in any season that he’s traded, he then has the right to void the deal at the end of the season, so any acquiring team is only picking up a rental. As great as Kershaw is, he’s not going to command a premium return from a team that would only get him for one year.
So those are the guys who didn’t quite make it. In a couple hours, we’ll reveal the first ten names on the list, and we’ll begin the march to the top spot, which is actually an interesting discussion for the first time in years.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Happy Trade Values week to everyone.
Bonus – Honorable Mention Anagram Values:
(in order listed above)
Ur Amazon Cell
Da Slimy Adze
We R Slimy
Potty Pie’s Stench
Lion Cloner Straws
AA Sez “No Ranch”
Him Careful Mel
Blond Banter
Frond And Crowbar
Eve Remain Nikki
On A Meat Ad
El Pink Rival
Roxy Buttonn
O Jolly Age!
Non-Sandy Swabs
Diaraia Colon
Dow Use Stamina
Gallows Entry
LL Ben Leaks
Treat Rerun
Statz Venem
Loan A Roan
Must Ram Carson
Crap Matter ENT
O.J.’s Sore
Cow Relay. Thanks.
Do we have theories on why teams still don’t pay for defense? I’m guessing the main factor is that it peaks and then declines so much earlier than other skills
I suspect a lot of teams know not to buy into the numbers with the confidence required to make a valuation for any specific player.
I’m not certain I understand London. Are you saying they don’t have confidence in the statistical numbers for how a player is defensively or how much that defense helps the team win compared to their hitting and base running numbers? They all have their own evaluation system on a players defensive abilities. If the Angels believe Simmons is great at defense, it comes down to how they believe this effects the teams performance. If they under paid for him it seems the Braves either disagreed with the valuations or how much that actually helped the team. Or maybe they over valued the players they received. Anyway, chicks love the long ball. It’s probably much easier to prove you got a good bat than a good glove.
Ps. I agree with your statement about the confidence issue. Just not completely certain what your complete thought was. Thanks.
Teams are well aware of the value of defense. I think there is no question that they want to save every run they can. I just suspect that they are not confident that the defensive numbers they have represent the skill level of a player well enough to confidently project the number of runs they can be expected to save going forward beyond some highly conservative estimate. Thus, I think teams are probably more reluctant to part with talent for defense relative to offense, because offense is more of a sure bet going forward.
Got it London. Watching Giancarlo Stanton absolutely kill the ball. The GM’s will absolutely know what they are getting when they pay or trade for him. WOW!!!
Again, thanks for clearing it up for me. I agree.
I’d also suspect there isn’t as much consensus on basic valuation concepts such as “replacement level defense” or “positional adjustments” as we want to think.
MLB teams may have more accurate measures of the real value of defense.
I agree, and I’d take it one step further and remove the word “may” from your sentence.
Look at Heyward. The problem with paying superstar money for a middling offensive player is that a dip in offense and a slight dip in defense render the player close to average. I’m more and more in the “go for the bat” camp.
carl crawford, michael bourn, etc. etc.
yeah, that’s not a biased sample at all, hm…
Names on the other side surely include Mike Cameron, Omar Vizquel, Yadier Molina (and several other catchers), even John Olerud at first base maintained HOVG value because of the extra defense he brought throughout his career. And, of course, several KC Royals.
I’d say it’s athleticism-based defense specifically that doesn’t stick, which is mostly outfield defense but probably plays at SS as well. Mike Cameron is both an example of and an exception to that rule, where (according to UZR), where he hit a wall at age 32 but was good again a few years later.
The way people raved about Andruw Jones’ defense then and still wax poetic about that aspect of his game now, you’d think he would’ve been a Gold Glove CF well into his late 30s. Nope.
Are those “names on the other side”? The question is about teams PAYING for defense (in dollars or prospects), and how teams apparently don’t. The perception might be that the downside or risk of falloff is too great for a TOP PRICE elite defender to actually garner such a price, with Crawford and Bourn used as examples (though those are first and foremost speed examples). Did Cameron, Vizquel, or Molina ever garner a high price in money or prospects?
Were your counter examples paid like superstars though?
To make it very simple, and put in the words of Johnnie Cochran: if you can’t hit, you must be shit.
I am going to have to go back and check the trial transcripts; it’s been like 20 years but I don’t remember him saying that AT ALL.
Maybe one of his lesser known trials? Or maybe it was Jackie Chiles…
I think it was Joe Pesci, right before Marisa Tomei’s Oscar-winning testimony about the details of classic cars.
Is Dave saying he would rank the glove guys higher based on their defensive contributions but that he has recalibrated their rankings to more reflect their preceived value in MLB for having observed the Simmons trade?
Carpenter has been awesome and overlooked for years, always tweaking his game to find an edge, hopefully he comes back healthy in the second half.
I’m assuming that some of the guys that fell off, like Cutch, belong in this section, too. Is that right?
Correct.
So the Blue Jays have three players on this list. Who is the most valuable among them? I think Sanchez would get the most back if he were traded.
yeah surprisingly (imo) sanchez has probably moved to the top.
Sanchez (23, 4yrs control)
Stroman (25, 4yrs control)
Pillar (27, 4yrs control)
Career (P as SP only)
Sanchez 29gs, 6.4ip/gs, 75era-, 97fip-, 93xfip-, 2.8fwar/32gs, 5.4r9war/32gs, 4.1avg
Stroman 42gs, 6.3ip/gs, 92era-, 82fip-, 85xfip-, 4.0fwar/32gs, 3.8r9war/32gs, 3.9avg
Pillar 1226pa, .304babip, 87wrc+, 4.9bsr/650pa, 19.9def/650pa, 3.8fwar/650pa
This Season
Sanchez 18gs, 6.6ip/gs, 68era-, 81fip-, 80xfip-, 4.5fwar/32gs, 6.4r9war/32gs, 5.4avg
Stroman 18gs, 6.5ip/gs, 112era-, 89fip-, 87xfip-, 3.2fwar/32gs, 1.8r9war/32gs, 2.5avg
Pillar: 366pa, .305babip, 83wrc+, 0.0bsr/650pa, 30.0def/650pa, 3.9fwar/650pa
I agree with Dave’s evaluation of defensive trade value so along with his lack of raw tools and upside Pillar definitely doesn’t belong in the top 50 and even getting an honourable mention might be generous.
but especially given sanchez and stroman’s raw stuff and prospect status coming in, along with the numbers they’ve put up and their age and upside, I think these 2 could easily have made the top 50 and i bet we’ll find that they match up well in all of performance, upside, and contract with even some guys that’ll be up pretty high on the list.
Hmm.. new name… SanchShow… doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Id go with DirtySanchez
Not sure I can agree with the Brandon Belt assessment. Even though the K’s have only dropped recently, he still has a 131 wRC+ over 2407 PA’s. That 131 wRC+ is 8th best since 2011 (his first year). He is also 5th in that span in DRS with +27. Then you add in that he is owed $14.5m per year for the next 5 years and he seems worthy of this list.
Yeah, he really does not seem to fit in the “Track Record” group.
He’s definitely a highly valuable asset, which is why he got a mention here. But he’s also 28, so so it’s no so sure thing that the last couple of years of his deal are going to be productive, and he’s more of a short-term play than a long-term building block. And for a short-term guy, there’s a decent amount of risk there. He’s only played 150 games in a season once, dealt with concussion issues last year — which scare teams a lot more now than they used to — and his offense is based more around sustaining a high BABIP than launching bombs. As a 1B who has never hit 20 homers in a season, Belt’s actual value is probably higher than his trade value.
Now this reasoning I totally agree with. Thanks for the further insight Dave.
Let’s see, Brandon Crawford hit 21 HR’s last year in a pitchers park and has 61 RBI at the all star break this year?? Glove only??
Yah I also think that Crawford should have made the list, really shocked about him.
Defense is still his main calling card and he’s 29.
Over the last 3 years, Brandon Crawford’s wRC+ is about 30 higher than Simmons’. He has literally provided close to 50% higher offensive value than Simmons.
Defense is the calling card, yes, but I’m not sure the valuation issues that follow Simmons, Pillar, Kiermaier etc. should apply to Crawford other than as lingering perception.
I also think Crawford should have made the list, for his bat as well as his glove. He’s a top five NL position player by either fWAR or rWAR the first half of 2016, and his contract is pretty team friendly. Also I don’t know if the Simmons trade was because that’s all Atlanta could get for him, or if they would have gotten substantially more if they had waited.
That said, I’m a Giants’ fan, so I’m biased. And I understand Dave’s reasoning, that Crawford is 29 (as burts_beads said) and we don’t know if he’s peaked with the bat and the glove. And trade value is what other GMs would give up for Crawford compared to players, not what they “should” give up.
Show me where Dave said he’s “glove only?” I’ll wait
“So, while one could make a pretty valid case for the overall value of the four players above, each of them rely pretty heavily on the acceptance of the value of their defense,in the discussion”
Right. Deriving a large amount of one’s value from one’s defense is not the same as deriving value SOLELY from one’s defense. And btw, I happen to agree that Crawford is a neat offensive player and not glove only.
I am a little shocked that Joe Ross didn’t make it, it’s only a 15 DL right? RIGHT? But in all seriousness, about where would have been if he didn’t get hurt 40s? That trade keeps looking better and better for the nats. Could be one of the steals of the decades, also have to imagine that Murphy is on this list.
It’s not really basing his value on how good the trade was for the Nats. He’s a good young pitcher, but he isn’t signed to a long-term, team-friendly deal. So his total years are limited and his costs can go way up.
But the point is current trade value right? It’s not like he’s slated to get TJ after his injury. He Currently has 5.5 years of control and has been excellent for his first 1.5 years. He’s young and his stuff has gotten better since being in the mlb. The Fact that he still has 5 more years of team control should help his value not hurt it.
Ross 29gs, 5.8ip/gs, 89era-, 88fip-, 94xfip-, 3.4fwar/32gs, 3.2r9wwr/32gs, 3.3avg
imo he’s been good but not that good, doesn’t have the raw stuff to wow….and is likely still considered a surprise overachiever by most, not yet as a guy just fulfilling his potential.
I don’t understand why Kiermaier is considered just defense? I mean, I get why beat writers thinks that, but aren’t we more informed? Pillar and Simmons are just defensive players. Kiermaier’s an above league average hitter. A career 105 wRC+ hitter, his career numbers (2014-2016), and Adam Jones’ (2014-2016) are remarkably similar. His rookie .187 ISO was supposed to be unsustainable, but he’s followed it up with a .156 and .211 ISO. This year, Kiermaier has been 3% above league average offensively in spite of a ridiculous .247 BABIP. If that jumps to .320 next year, you’re talking MVP caliber, offensive and defensive. I think Kiermaier is one of a half dozen 5 tool players.
Also, I’m really surprised Myers isn’t on the list. Turner, Ross, and Bauers were traded for him. 3 Baseball America top 100’s, and Myers was pretty bad when he was traded.
Since the start of 2014, KK is 28th in WAR, 2nd in Def, and 120th in Off. He isn’t a dead beat with the bat, but defense is still most of his value.
I see a 26 year old with an 8% BB (up big), a 16% K rate (down big), a .211 ISO (up big), and a .247 BABIP in spite of elite speed, and I’m buying that offensive profile. Give him Mookie’s .314 BABIP and they’re the same player this year, but one’s a platinum glover.
I’m not saying his offense is as good as his defense. I’m saying that he’s better than he gets credit for with the bat, and I think he’s being overlooked if people don’t think he will get considerably better as he nears his prime. FWIW, I see 98th in OFF at +12.2, and he has 750 PA fewer than the leader in that time period. Kinda splitting hairs here, but give him Trout’s PA, and he’s in the mid 70’s for offense.
Myers wasn’t traded for Turner, Ross and Bauers, though. It was a 3 team deal, where Myers + 2 low prospects was traded for Turner and Ross who were traded for Bauers and Steven Souza + 1 low prospect who were traded for Myers + 2 low prospects.
Ross and Turner were neither consensus top 100 prospects at the time. BA rated him #95 at the time, but he was absent from every other prospect list. Turner was more highly regarded (in the 60s on most lists), but was no where near as highly regarded as he currently is.
Furthermore, Souza too was a considered a top prospect. BA rated him #37 when he was traded.
It’s not fair to judge the deal in retrospect, because it confuses the value of the players now vs their value then. Myers was essentially worth one top 100 prospect + one top 200 prospect.
Boy, that’s some revisionist history there. The Rays deal with the Nats/Rays deal was completely irrelevant to the Rays/Padres deal. The Nats sent no one to the Padres, and the Padres sent no one to the Nats. It was 25th rounder Travis Ott and Souza, traded to the Rays for the Rays’ Turner and Ross. It happened on the same day, and at the same time, but wan’t a 3 team trade. It was 2 separate trades. The Nationals got involved only because the Rays wanted immediate talent.
Wil Myers was traded for 2 guys who got mentions above, plus the current 54th best prospect. If Dave is trying to base this on actual trade value, which he is, it seems to me that the guy who has garnered more in trade value than anyone in recent memory should be included.
Last I checked the title of this article was “2016 Trade Value: Honorable Mentions” not “December 2014 Trade Value”.
Valiant effort, but no.
The Padres traded Ross, Turner, Bauers, Rene Rivera and Burch Smith to Tampa for Myers, Jose Castillo and Gerardo Reyes.
His offense is not plus for an OFer. He drives a good portion of his WAR from his defense. It’s also likely that he’s being helped by the Rays defensive positioning, which coupled with his skills helps him drive those defensive numbers. Last, history says defensive-oriented OFers have a short lifespan as ++ defenders. They may remain good, but not truly elite at the level KK showed in 2015. No MLB team would project forward and pay heavily for a player with that skillset because they know they’re not going to get another 5.5 WAR season so heavily weighted on defense.
Why does Adam Eaton qualify as a “defense first” guy? This is the first year he’s posted a positive UZR. In the previous two seasons, his value derived from his bat, not his glove.
Because this season the vast majority of his value is coming from his defensive numbers.
Because, the previous 2 seasons Eaton was a centerfielder. He wasn’t very good at that. He’s playing right field this season, a different position that fits his skill set better, and has not merely posted a “positive UZR”, but the best UZR in the baseball. I would agree though that Eaton and Crawford are more solidly above average offensive players whose elite defense provides additional value, as opposed to players whose value lies entirely/almost entirely in their elite defense, like Andrelton Simmons, Kiermaier and Pillar
Really surprised Lucroy isn’t on the list- I think I get why, but since he was included last year and has only increased his value this year I’d think he’d get some consideration. Still unbelievable to me that he’s only due to make $5 million next season.
Lucroy has one less year on his contract than he did last year. It is just tough for a guy with 1.5 seasons left to have a contract in the Top 50 Trade Value as it only has short term value.
Yeah, that makes sense. Just surprised that the year loss isn’t somewhat offset by his performance this year over last year (when he was pretty terrible/injured/ concussed).
If you’re acquiring him, the previous injuries are probably still very much in your mind when you assess the risks.
Kershaw is not “untradeable” in any sense of the word. His production clearly outpaces his salary but more importantly let’s not forget that TV money allows probably more than 10 teams to afford his services. Even including the inherent riskiness of pitchers, he would draw interest considering has consistently been the best player at his position which provides exponential, not linear, value. He’s almost “peak Pedro” right now.
Dave mentions that he’s untradeable because if he’s traded, then he’s able to opt out at the end of the year. So you’re trading for one year, tops, and that doesn’t have a ton of value.
Yeah. I mean if they decided to trade him in the offseason and the other team gets a full year of him, I could see some worth while value coming back, but still not enough to justify trading him. In fact I think nothing at this point would justify trading him, lol.
Bullshit. If you can win a World Series and can acquire the best pitcher on the planet, you’re obviously going to consider it and be willing to part with some pretty valuable assets in order to make it work. Since Dave seems to be accounting for external context here (a.k.a. not simply evaluating the trade value of these players in a vacuum), an example is that Texas would definitely trade Odor (#48 on the list) for Kershaw, particularly given the construction of their team. Profar, Desmond or Deshields could play 2B and their rotation improves dramatically. Can’t forget that flags fly forever.
Well, I mean…duh. Of course a team with a surplus of MI would gladly trade one when they are setting up for a postseason run and need SP help. Unfortunately, this isn’t a “trade value to the Rangers” series of articles.
But why would the Dodgers trade him for Odor? They obviously would like to get more than that since he can’t opt out of the contract he has with them. That’s the dealbreaker, I guess.
So if the Rangers would trade Odor for Kershaw, but the Dodgers would not trade Kershaw for Odor… that sounds like Kershaw has higher trade value.
Kershaw is doing a great “peak Pedro” season this year, sure…unadjusted. But that isn’t special among all time great pitchers. What makes “peak Pedro” so special is how incredible his numbers were compared to the rest of the league’s. Kershaw’s numbers are fantastic in that regard too, but they’re more in the range of “best pitcher in the game in his best season”, and still not at “peak Pedro” level.
You really think what Kershaw has been doing is not special among the all-time great pitchers? Seriously? Ok.
Prediction for #1 – Kris Bryant. Power is up, K’s are down, and you can play him anywhere.
I still say Trout, but I’d definitely have Bryant #2. The difference between Trout and Bryant in ZIPs ROS projection is the same as the difference between Bryant and Kole Calhoun or Adam Jones or Gregory Polanco. And they are about the same age. The one extra year for Bryant is not enough for me.
A key factor in these things is salary. Trout is already making many millions, while Bryant is still pre-arb. The $$$-per-WAR equation is definitely in Bryant’s favor at this point.
Yes, which would be very important for a few small market teams. I mean, every team would love to have Trout no matter what, but some that are very budget conscious could like a guy like Bryant more. I try to think about trade value as being mostly just surplus value over what a guy is owed, as opposed to $$$-per-WAR. No one would rather have a 1.0 WAR player for $1 million dollars more than having a 3.0 WAR player for $5 million. I think Trout has more than Bryant when it comes to raw excess value, even with about $50-60 million more owed to him and playing one fewer year under his contract.
Just a guess on who will be in the top 5:
Trout
Harper
Bryant
Seager
Altuve
That’s in no particular order, however. I don’t see any pitcher’s making the top 5, but if one did it would be Thor I think. I think he will be the closest anyway.
*Edited to take off Lindor and replace with Altuve.
No way is Harper in the top 5. He only has two years left, and he’s going to get a huge pay raise in arbitration after this season. Rizzo has to be ahead of him, and also ahead of Altuve probably.
Lindor’s gotta be in the top 5. I’ll guess Trout, Bryant, Lindor, Seager, Altuve (with Correa and Sale just behind)
With pitching as insane as it is, I wonder if a pitcher doesn’t sneak onto the top 5. There isn’t a slam dunk case to be made for a pitcher, but Thor probably has an argument.
In the past, Dave has hinted half-humorously that this series is “Trout #1 and then the rest” for the foreseeable future. Has the time come already where Trout is no longer #1? I would bet he is still #1.
I could see him unseated next year. It’s crazy what the surplus value is with him. He’s going to make about $17 million over the next calendar year, but will likely be worth 3-4 times that. Even his three years at the end at $33 million each are bargains. He might hold on next year anyway if one of the younger guys with a year or two extra doesn’t make a compelling case. He won’t hold on after that, though.
The #1 guy in the conversation with Trout has to be Altuve. He’s on a laughable contract and has been a top 3-5 player this year. Add in his age, and I think he’s the guy.
Oh damn, I forgot about Altuve. He’s got a real good shot with that insanely great contract he’s got.
I think people are over emphasizing contracts and under doing length of contracts, past performance and to a lesser extent age. All things that Altuve is not particularly strong at. Altuve has only 3.5 years left of control. Altuve has never had a 5 fWAR or rWAR season. And he is over 26, so not a lot of upside left. Also not much young contract extension value either. His contract is great, but its not that different to a non super 2 ARB guy. Maybe 10-20 million total. That isn’t a big deal in these equations.
As for this year, he has been great. But it is his best defensive WAR season. Not sure how much I buy that. His BABIP is a bit high compared to his career. Probably not buying him as a 7 WAR player. More like a 5.5-6.0 WAR guy. How can he be ahead of say Mookie Betts? Is Altuve going to be 20% better then Betts the next 4 years? Cause that is probably what he will need to be to be ranked higher just because of the control and age difference. And is around 10.
I see Altuve more like 10-12.
Man you guys are really brutal when it comes to your knowledge of the Giants. You totally kill their farm system that just placed 5 players in BA’s mid season top 100, you dismiss Brandon Crawford being one of the most productive OFFENSIVE players at his position as well as being the best defensively and you minimize Brandon Belt’s power by saying he’s never hit 20 HR. I’m pretty sure when you’re traded you end up at a new home park and Belt hits 30 HR’s per year at ANY other park. Plus he’s on pace for 80 extra base hits this season. You guys need to start staying up later and actually watching the giants play. You’re missing a great season.
Right. The guy who covers all of baseball is less biased than the Giants fan touting Giants players.
LOVE these types of comments!
Nobody I have seen talk about it seems to know why the giants had 5 guys in the top 100 from BA.
“As great as Kershaw is, he’s not going to command a premium return from a team that would only get him for one year.”
I don’t understand this comment at all. Don’t teams give up a premium for SP rentals all the time? The Athletics gave up Russell for a Samardzija rental. Last year many thought it was odd/surprising/foolish the Dodgers didn’t give up Urias for Price.
How on earth would a Kershaw rental not command a premium?
Samardzija wasn’t a rental; they gave up Russell for 1.5 years of control, plus Jason Hammel was in that deal too. And he wasn’t making $33 million a year when they traded for him.
And no one who knows anything about baseball thinks it was foolish the Dodgers didn’t trade Urias for Price. Look at the returns Price and Cueto actually got; guys like Daniel Norris and Cody Reed are nice pitching prospects who aren’t anywhere close to ending up here.
You’re cherry picking here by comparing Kershaw to worse (albeit still very good) pitchers like Cueto, Shark and Price and Urias to Norris and Reed. Any contender would be willing to part with very valuable pieces for one run with the GOAT.
And the Dodgers would still demand way more then any other team did for their aces. That’s the part you don’t get…
Lol at not having the second best player in baseball and by far best pitcher in top 50 cause he could be on expiring deal. Easily in top 30.
Also Myers, Ozuna, Sanchez, and Belt easily should be top 50.
lol love these types of comments! keep posting guys!
I’m not convinced that fewer than five teams would be willing to give up a king’s ransom to get even one year of Kershaw. Should they? Perhaps not. But it’s hard for me to believe that a guy who puts up the same WAR as the best players in baseball who is a pitcher in this weird era where pitching is ridiculously expensive wouldn’t command a top-50 trade package in baseball.
Look, I completely understand the value of low-cost contracts and long-term team control, but there will always be a bias in favor of next year, and I think there will always be a team who thinks that Clayton Kershaw is the difference maker that their team really needs and would, as such, give up a whole hell of a lot of future value to get him, even for one year.
That’s my scorching take.
David Price, making half the salary that Kershaw is now, brought back Daniel Norris, Matt Boyd, and Jairo Labourt. Would you trade any of the guys on this list for that trio? Of course not.
Feel free to go back and look at what kinds of players get traded in deals for rentals. It isn’t this kind of player.
You may be right, but I can’t shake the feeling that a team trading for Clayton Kershaw would have to trade for CLAYTON KERSHAW. We see players of that caliber traded so infrequently that I feel like we don’t have a good sense of how teams treat the marginal difference between Price and Kershaw. We can equivocate and say “they are both aces” or I can exaggerate in the other direction and call Price a good pitcher and Kershaw an all-time great. How do teams view that difference, and, perhaps more significantly, are there some teams that are seduced by some of these qualitative differences between them? Is the highest bidder for Kershaw higher relative to the other bidders than for a typical player trade market?
Another thing to consider is Price and Cueto were traded midseason, so that’s half the value of trading pre-season. This obviously disproportionately affects the value of one-year contracts. There isn’t much difference between trading a 3-year contract midseason, that half season is only 16% of the contract, but comparing Price to Kershaw is comparing a trade that has 50% less playing time associated with the star pitcher (actually less, since Price was traded 4 months into the season, not 3). You probably can’t strictly double Price’s package, but you also can’t directly compare it.
You know who does have a good sense of what they would trade for Clayton Kershaw? The people in the game that I ran this list by, and talked to, while compiling it. You know how many of them even mentioned Kershaw’s name when discussing who should make the list and should not?
Zero. Not a single person mentioned Kershaw. Max Scherzer got a mention from someone, but Kershaw did not. Because everyone knows how his contract works, and everyone knows what teams are willing to pay for rentals.
Yeah, you tell them, Dave. Who in their right mind would want that bum and his ridiculous inflated contract? It’s going to be happy days in Dodgerland once the team is finally relieved of the burden of sending him paychecks every two weeks.
You’re right, the title of this post where Kershaw was mentioned is “2016 Trade Value: Overpaid Liabilities”, which is why Kershaw was mentioned along with other worthless players like Carpenter, Crawford, Belt, and many of the best young players in the game.
It kind of sounds like you don’t even believe in the validity of your own column idea. You’re openly questioning the execution of it at the very least. Well done.
I’m not surprised Scherzer got mentioned. For what’s he’s getting vs. Price and Greinke, his deal already looks like a possible bargain (though not enough of a bargain to be top 50 or 100 in trade value).
I mean that’s totally plausible, I’m arguing partially that there might be some team that would go out and do something dumb for the name “Clayton Kershaw,” and not that his contract is, if traded, one of the 50 most valuable in baseball. My comments should be read with a healthy dose of “I could be wrong but…” drizzled on top.
It’s actually fairly difficult for a contending team to make a “dumb” trade for Kershaw, specifically a one for one deal (which matters for the sake of this trade value concept), even if it’s only for two months plus playoffs, because he’s that freakin good. That’s the whole point.
I thought the point was that the Dodgers own an asset that they can only sell a portion of. A team trading for Kershaw would get a rental, but the Dodgers would want to be compensated for the loss of the remainder of the contract. That a team that would need to pay for the whole pie, but only get a slice, is what makes Kershaw all but untradeable. Or maybe I’ve missed the point entirely.
No, it’s how the player’s trade value is perceived by the rest of the league. Why the Dodgers wouldn’t move him is obvious, but Dave is also explicitly stating that, for example, the Rangers wouldn’t trade Odor for him. In that scenario, the Dodgers’ feelings are irrelevant.
Does it really mean anything though if the Dodger’s wouldn’t trade Kershaw for that return? He is definitely deserves his own tier as he has so much more value to the Dodgers than anybody else.
In the sense of value that it would take for the Dodgers to trade Kershaw he could be #1. Because they have to get paid for the loss of having Kershaw for the foreseeable future. From the side of what a team would trade to get Kershaw he deserves discussion, but ultimate short of the list. He would definitely get something pretty great, but if some of these guys with cheap control there would be more competition driving up the price.
Your point about teams not paying for defense is well taken, but Brandon Crawford is batting .281/.353/.447 with 61 RBI this season, and since the start of 2015 he’s at .266/.333/.447 in an extreme pitcher’s park. He’s hit 30 HRs and has 145 RBI in that span, the RBI total being 9th-best in the NL, ahead of Posey, McCutchen, A-Gon, Braun, Votto, Marte, Freeman, etc. Not to mention teams know about his elite SS defense; he’s arguably the best defender in baseball. Very hard to imagine he wouldn’t command a bigger return than guys like Jon Gray/Carlos Martinez. Crawford’s wRC+ over the last two seasons is equal to that of Xander Bogaerts.
I think the notion that Eaton and Brandon Crawford are players who are “glove first”, or even who the bulk of their value is tied to their glove, is mistaken. Crawford is has an OPS of 800 this season after 782 last season and plays elite defense IN ADDITION to that. The market of MLB teams clearly put a ton of value on Jason Heyward this offseason and Eaton’s offensive numbers the past 3 seasons are very similar to those of Heyward in the 3 years prior to his signing with the Cubs, and since Eaton’s move to right field he has been at least Heyward’s equal defensively
The Sportswriters Blues guys (McCullough and Moura) did an episode savaging the Kershaw decision here without actually having read the piece. They assumed the team acquiring him had him through 2018.