Max Scherzer’s Trade Value

The Nationals seem very unlikely to trade Max Scherzer (and his broken nose), but with them holding the 11th-best record in the National League and being five games under .500, rumors are starting to swirl. Ken Rosenthal discussed the possibility of a trade, mostly laying out the reasons why a deal was unlikely. While Scherzer trade proposals might be more fantasy than reality, determining his trade value is more reality-based, even if more of an academic pursuit.

A year ago, when constructing the Trade Value series, Kiley McDaniel put Max Scherzer at No. 41, and he indicated the difficulty surrounding a player like Scherzer.

Some small market teams like Oakland, Pittsburgh, and Tampa Bay could technically afford $22 million through 2021 then $15 million through 2028 for three years of Scherzer — it’s a huge but not insane part of their payroll — they would just never actually do that. So with all of those teams off the board and most of the middle-tier teams choosing to use their money with more of medium-term outlook, the market for Scherzer appears as though it would be limited. Also, he turns 34 this month and will decline at some point, even if he’ll punch me for saying that.

All that said, for big-market contenders that needs an ace in the playoffs, a 6.5-WAR pitcher may have the impact of a 10 WAR pitcher if deployed in a certain way during the postseason. And some orgs can stomach the $15-22 million tab, regardless of how long it runs, for that kind of impact over three postseasons. A trade-value list for just the Yankees may have Scherzer 20 spots higher, but this list is for a little bit of everyone. I feel like Dave and I did the math here similarly, as I moved him down eight spots from the 2017 edition of this series, based mostly on aging.

Assessing a generic trade value for a player like Scherzer is a problem because the market for Scherzer’s services is a small one, but among the teams that might be interested, the value to those teams would be higher than a standard analysis might provide. Scherzer’s value to the Nationals complicates matters further. To get an idea of what I’m talking about, let’s start with some generic projections for Scherzer, incorporate his salary, and estimate that the value of a win is around $9 million.

Max Scherzer’s Generic Trade Value
WAR $/WAR Present Value Present Salary Value Net Value Today
2019 3.5 9 31.5 11.2 20.3
2020 5.8 9.5 50.7 22.3 28.4
2021 5.3 10 44.9 22.3 22.6
TOTAL 14.6 $127. 1 M $55.8 M $71.3 M

So what does that trade look like? Based on my prospect value research, that is probably something like a prospect ranked around 20 plus another at the back end of the top-100. For the Dodgers, that’d be like Dustin May and Will Smith. For the Astros, Kyle Tucker and Corbin Martin might get close. For the Braves, Cristian Pache and Bryse Wilson might be a good pair. The Padres and Rays could put together multiple options that would match the value above. Most other clubs couldn’t even get there without throwing a large pile of riskier or lower-floor prospects that the Nationals wouldn’t even consider without at least one high-end name. That doesn’t account for young major league talent that could be sent Washington’s way, but before we even get to that, we have to be more specific about Scherzer’s value, because if he is being traded, the proposals above are probably light.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

The Nationals aren’t going to value Scherzer at a generic $9 million per WAR. While using one figure for league-wide dollars per WAR can be helpful in determining the average spending habits league-wide, teams have different budgets and different needs in terms of winning now versus later that affect how much they might be willing to pay a player in free agency or trade. We don’t look at the offenses of the Astros, Twins, and Dodgers with a wRC+ of around 120 and pretend that they are at 100 because that’s what league-average is. The average is helpful in setting a baseline, but teams with ability and desire to spend more generally do so. For example, the Washington Nationals annually carry a $200 million payroll, don’t have much of a farm system, and have a lot of star-level talent on the major league roster. As presently set up, the Nationals are very much in win-now mode. Even if the club were to fall completely out of contention, trade Scherzer, and not sign Anthony Rendon, they would still be looking at around $100 million in returning players including Patrick Corbin, Stephen Strasburg, Juan Soto, and Trea Turner. That’s a decent core to try and contend with, and then they could use all the extra salary room to go out and get players to help them contend… except those players wouldn’t be as good as Max Scherzer.

The team could trade Turner and Soto and completely rebuild, but given the quality on hand and the ability to spend, the Nationals are extremely likely to want to contend the next few seasons. That means any team trying to deal for Scherzer isn’t just trying to beat the offer of another team as they also must beat the Nationals’ internal valuations of what he might be worth to them. When the White Sox traded Chris Sale, his value to the club was as a trade chip in winter 2016 versus a trade chip in July 2017 versus a trade chip in winter 2017 because the White Sox’s window to contend extended beyond those years. Scherzer as part of a contending 2020 Nationals team likely has considerably more value than Scherzer as a trade chip in the winter or next summer, and that makes moving Scherzer more difficult.

If we bump up Scherzer’s dollars per WAR to start at $12 million, which is likely a closer approximation of his value to the Nationals as well as any payroll-rich club with an open window to contend, the valuation comes out like this.

Max Scherzer’s Nationals Trade Value
WAR $/WAR Present Value Present Salary Value Net Value Today
2019 3.5 12 42 11.2 30.8
2020 5.8 12.7 67.8 22.3 45.5
2021 5.3 13.5 60.6 22.3 38.3
TOTAL 14.6 $170.4 M $55.8 M $114.6 M

Instead of a prospect ranked in the top-20 and one ranked somewhere else in the top-100, we are now talking about needing two top-20 prospects, not unlike Yoan Moncada and Michael Kopech, to land Scherzer. A Fernando Tatis Jr. or Wander Franco one-for-one is an interesting proposition, but almost impossible in reality as teams giving up stars tend to spread out the risk a little. Now, the equivalent trade from Houston includes Forrest Whitley and Tucker. A Braves trade of Austin Riley and Pache still might not be enough. The same is true for MacKenzie Gore and Luis Urias. Maybe Keibert Ruiz and May. The Yankees would have to start any offer with Gleyber Torres and the Red Sox would need to offer Andrew Benintendi. Given the club’s finances and window to contend, Scherzer’s value to the Nationals is incredibly high.

The Nationals aren’t a team heading for a rebuild with one really good trade asset. Max Scherzer isn’t a pending free agent or a veteran with a bad contract. Trading Scherzer isn’t realistic absent a massive change in the Nationals’ desire to contend. Most teams don’t even have the necessary players to make a worthwhile trade offer. The team that ends up with Scherzer is the team that wants him the most. For the foreseeable future, that team is the Washington Nationals.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

79 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Baseball Anagrams
7 years ago

When will this year’s trade value series take place?

emh1969
7 years ago

As soon as they figure out what to do with Jose Ramirez!

Seriously, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like that before. Last year he was #1 on the list, this year he’s likely to be left off completely. Granted, someone would trade for him if the Indians dangled him. But you’re bascially taking a risk that some semblance of a player that we haven’t seen in 400+ PAs returns.

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  emh1969

BTW, Ramirez has an 86 point drop in his wRC+ from last year to this year, I thought that might be unpredented for a (presumably) non-injured player in his prime. But it’s actually the exact same drop that Bryce Harper had between 2015 (197) and 2016 (111). While Harper has never come close to repeating his 2015 season, he has improved on his 2016 performance. That gives me some hope that Ramirez isn’t a lost cause and that he can find his way to at least a 100 wRC+ in the future.

The Duke
7 years ago

Is riley really a top 20 prospect? He looks like a legit major league star who should be able to pull Max 1:1. Now why the Braves would ever do that is another question

California Baseball
7 years ago
Reply to  The Duke

The sample size for Riley is still really small. I’d love to see him succeed, but you’re counting your chickens waaay before they’ve hatched. And your comparing him 1:1 with arguably the greatest pitcher of his generation, who has been at the top of the sport for a decade now. Yes, Scherzer is getting old and Riley has people dreaming on him right now, but if I’m putting together a club to win right now, there’s no way I don’t take Scherzer over him.

nenrightMember since 2020
7 years ago

the greatest pitcher of this generation is Kershaw and it isn’t that close.

California Baseball
7 years ago
Reply to  nenright

I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly 4 years ago, and still don’t necessarily disagree (the “arguably” was for Kershaw), but his inability to stay on the field over the most recent third of his career while Scherzer only became more dominant over the same time span has opened a door for Scherzer to claim the title. I think you’re right that Kershaw has the edge on him still, but whereas Kershaw was running away with it 4 years ago, we’ll now have to wait to see how the final phase of both of their careers play out before we can call it, and the trends have been favoring Max.

FrodoBeck
7 years ago
Reply to  The Duke

30%+ K rate and sub 5% BB rate is not exactly the base you’d begin with to build a star player. Obviously he has power but Riley is far from a sustainable sure thing at this point

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  FrodoBeck

Riley also had a 188 wRC+ in May. So far in June it’s 92. He’s got some adjustments to make before we label him a “legit major league star”.

WerthlessMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  The Duke

Austin Riley is a good HR hitter. But he needs to show the skills suggesting he’s not just “Sano without the BB rate” before labeling him a star.

Quick, someone call the Marlins and let them know that Harold Ramirez is a legit major league star! More WAR than Riley in same number of games. Garrett Cooper another legit star! Scott Kingery, Mitch Garver, Trey Mancini, Howie Kendrick… send your trade offers!

AnonMember since 2025
7 years ago

Agree. He isn’t going anywhere. Even if they don’t turn it around and end up around .500 and miss the playoffs, they are still a leading contender going into next year. They will still trot out Scherzer, Strasburg, Corbin, Turner and Soto next year and just those 5 are the core of a winning team. They have solid vets signed next year in Suzuki and Sanchez. Plus they have a large number of mid to high dollar contracts falling off the books after this year – Zimmerman, Dozier, Gomes, Eaton, Doolittle, Rosenthal, Kendrickl – which should give them an edge in bringing back Rendon or simply being a very active player in free agency. Probably even both if they wanted.

pilldomMember since 2024
7 years ago
Reply to  Anon

Exactly. Resign Rendon, resign Zimerman and L platoon for <$8 million, and with a little development from Kieboom, they are set at most positions.
If they fall out of contention, I can see them trading Kendrick and maybe someone will take Eaton too since he has cheap options. Frees up more payroll for next year and I think it's way more likely we see them move Doolittle. He would net a premium return the way RP go at the deadline. Especially since he has an extra option. His trade value will be as high as ever in July and if someone makes a great offer I could see them pulling the trigger.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago

I don’t think that’s “too high” for a deal to get done for literally the best pitcher in major league baseball. The problem with this analysis isn’t necessarily that Scherzer has value to the present team, it’s that teams are willing to pay more for star players because it’s more valuable to get all that production into one roster spot. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like the Cardinals a couple years ago where you have an army of 2-win players and no discernible way to improve except spending a ton of money.

Another way of putting it is that a lot of teams can find 2-win players but it’s really hard to find 5-win players.

Yet another way to put it is that Scherzer is on pace to top 7 fWAR this year, and you can only start one pitcher in the wild card play-in.

Two FV 60 prospects* is not such a high price to pay for that, even with his salary and age, if you’re in win-now mode . Dustin May and Keibert Ruiz? Sure. Whitley and Tucker? I’d seriously consider it. Lux and Ruiz/May? I’d think about that too, although I think Lux is better than those other two and maybe a 60. How about Pache and Ian Anderson as a starting point? I’m in. There probably aren’t any other teams for whom it makes sense to go all-in and who have the prospects to do it (Yankees and Phillies might have the motivation, but not the prospect capital, and I’m not sold the Twins, Padres, or Rays should be throwing all caution to the wind at this point).

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I’m curious what you would give up for Trevor Bauer?

Shalesh
7 years ago
Reply to  emh1969

1.5 years of Bauer returns something to similar to what 1.5 years of Samardzija (Top-5 prospect in Addy Russell) did in 2014 or what Pomeranz did in 2016 (Top-20 prospect Anderson Espinosa). So any FV60 of Pache, May, Ruiz, Lux would make sense with a another Top-200 prospect thrown-in.

I wouldn’t want Cliff Frazier as a headliner for Bauer. That seems way too low. Maybe with Andujar that makes for a good deal.

emh1969
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Makes sense.

And I agree re: Frazier. But I’m not sure I’d want both Frazier and Andujar. Seems like both of them are destined to move to 1B/DH in the very near future. And that’s particularly not helpful for the Indians who already have Santana, Bauers (who would be better off playing first), and Bradley tearing up AAA.

insidb
7 years ago
Reply to  emh1969

Frazier is a tools OF who appears to have a low defensive IQ; Andujar doesn’t seem to have a strong skillset and juts got shoulder surgery.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  emh1969

That’s going to depend entirely on what you think Trevor Bauer is these days. Last year, he was a league ace. This year, he’s more like a #3, with not a lot to distinguish him from Stroman in terms of value. Having a substitute available might lead some teams to play Cleveland and Toronto against each other.

Let’s say, hypothetically, the guy is going to be worth 5 wins in 1.5 seasons, and he’ll be paid about $24M over that stretch (also a hypothetical; the arbitration process is fickle). That’s about $20M+ in excess value in the FV framework, or an FV50.

After calculating all that out, my reaction is: Honestly, I think that’s pretty low considering that #3 pitchers don’t grow on trees and it’s an in-season upgrade and everyone needs pitchers. So I’d be more than happy to pay a higher price, and so maybe teams would be too. Maybe not as high as Shalesh’s FV60+FV50, but maybe, and an FV55+FV50 seems totally reasonable.

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

If I’m the Nats and I’m selling Scherzer (I’m not, and I don’t expect them to) I don’t want middle infielders or outfielders. the Nats youth is there (Turner, Soto, Robles) and so are their best current prospects (Kieboom, Garcia).

If Max is leaving, and Stras/Corbin aren’t getting any younger, I want a one stop pitcher pipeline. To be very precise I want

1) A FV 55+ pitcher who is at least in AA already
2) Another FV 55+ pitcher who could be further from the majors
3) A FV 40+ bat with warts but upside

Shalesh
7 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

Way too light. I think Scherzer commands close to the Sale trade: FV65 + FV55. And I’d be position agnostic, doesn’t matter, just get good players. Unless you can coax Gleyber Torres out of the Yankees, of course.

insidb
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

The White Sox received considerably less for a much cheaper ace in Sale who was also 8 years younger: I think HFB is actually on the right track.

willl
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

It would be insane for the Nationals to be position agnostic. Say they acquire (purely hypothetically) Ke’Bryan Hayes from the Pirates for Scherzer, but they also extend Rendon. Hayes, a potentially elite defensive 3B, is then forced to move to 1B and give up a huge portion of his potential value. Same goes for SS (with Turner there) or CF (though Robles could move to RF).

Since the Nationals are still in win-now mode, it is essential that they acquire the right player for the right position, so that trading Scherzer wouldn’t thereby torpedo their competitive window.

If they were in a full on rebuild, then of course you can care about positions, but the Nationals aren’t in full rebuild mode.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  HappyFunBall

I guess? I’m more interested in just getting value where I can, but if you think Pache/Robles will duplicate each other, then I can understand that. Tucker and Soto could each take a corner outfield slot just fine, though.

FrodoBeck
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

It would be pretty interesting for the Dodgers to trade for him. I would say that is far and away the best rotation come playoff-time, and maybe one of the greatest rotations assembled in my memory (Kershaw being potentially the weakest of the 4 best options is pretty wild).

Kershaw, Ryu, Buehler, and Scherzer are all must-start guys at this point, which would mean moving Hill to the bullpen to mow guys down for 2-3 innings at a time (even though he probably wouldn’t like it and has been very effective for them in the playoffs while starting). Which also pushes Maeda into the pen, again, which isn’t the worst thing given how he has performed in that role historically.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  FrodoBeck

The Dodgers will never do something like this because they just don’t believe that it’s worth it to upgrade from Hill to Scherzer, but I say they should. Can you imagine trying to win a series against any set of that rotation? And then they’d have that group together for the next couple of years after that, too.

Joe Joe
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Disgree. WAR is a finite resource. It is more valuable to get production from one position, but that is the main reason behind using WAR instead of wins for value. The cost for taking a roster spot is embedded as the replacement. Other than guys less than 1 WAR where what is replacement level drives a significant portion of their value, WAR is more or less value.

I don’t see the Cardinals as a bad role model. They’ve accumulated depth for years, When they get a few stars stars to go with depth, those teams are tough. Astros are like this now. Sure Astros have the stars, but they have depth as well.

Trades tend to be future WAR versus short-term WAR. Considering the Nationals want 2020 and 2021 WAR, it would take more future WAR than generic trade value suggests for a fair trade.

Jetsy Extrano
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

That’s an interesting point about the wild card game. For a team that sees a high likelihood of being a wild card, they might even pay more for an ace pitcher than the team would who’s winning the division.

It takes some calculating though. The Division Winners benefits by the championship probability added by playing the ace through the playoffs. The Wild Cards don’t accrue all of that, because if they still lose the wild card game then the ace is playing golf.

WCers before: 50% × 12% (WC game × serieses)
WCers after: 60% × 13%
DWers before: 100% × 12%
DWers after: 100 × 13%

With these WAG assumptions, the WCers do profit more, by 1.8% rather than 1%. To make it come out this direction, you need to have the one-game % gain be over 4× the all-series % gain (here I plugged in 10% and 1%).

Gotta get real estimates but before I lose this form text box…

mattMember since 2023
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Good point, always love your comments. You hammered home why i think the $/WAR valuation needs to be changed and is nowhere near linear, also star players are vastly underpaid when they hit FA. Roster spots + playing time has considerable value, when you are trying to build a good team you don’t value 3 mid rotation pieces that end up at Scherzer’s war in 500 innings as valuable as Scherzer. Those innings give you lots more upside, also the value of roster spot. It’s also why I’m starting to think top end relievers are actually undervalued while most the sabr community may consider them overvalued.

California Baseball
7 years ago

Craig, how did you come to $12m for the Nationals’ evaluation? I understand the logic that Scherzer is more valuable to them right now than to the average MLB team, but I’d be interested in hearing the data behind that figure. Any specific reason for the 33% premium as opposed to something else?

d_iMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

I was wondering the same thing about the $9mm baseline. Did free agency support that figure this winter? Just haven’t seen a refresh on that for a while and sort of figured it was lower given the last two offseasons.

Joe Joe
7 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

The Swartz piece is based on actual $/WAR and not $/projected WAR. Players get hurt, and/or spontaneously suck inflates the actual $/WAR number versus what a team thought it was getting. If using the actual $/WAR, projections should be cut by about 15% as they unadjusted reflect closer to the median value than the average value a player will provide.

v2miccaMember since 2016
7 years ago

Agreed. For whatever reason, the Nationals have under-performed projections and expectations for a few years now. But the core talent they currently have in place is just too good for the Front Office to consider trading one of the key pieces. Once Scherzer’s contract concludes in the 2021 season, It may be time for the Nationals to evaluate their team and decide if a rebuild is necessary. (Particularly if they have been unable to extend Soto or Robles in that time)

willl
7 years ago
Reply to  v2micca

The Nationals should be keeping an eye out for the right scenario to trade some of their key pieces. For example, there’s a really interesting potential trade with the Astros. Tucker is currently blocked at the major league level, and by acquiring Scherzer, Whitley and Martin’s path is much more complicated too, with a rotation of Cole, Verlander and Scherzer nailed down, two more spots for Peacock, Valdez, Whitley, Martin (along with Bukauskas, Perez and Bielak in the mix too).

Basically, Scherzer could be more valuable to the Astros than Whitley+Tucker would be to the Nationals.

Adding those two to the Nationals actually extends their window beyond 2021, when Scherzer would become a free agent, while it would lock down the Astros as the WS favorite for the next 3 years.

adlenon
7 years ago

Now do Luis Castillo! A team struggling for Offense both now and moving forward (Joey Votto decline bound to come, even if 2019 winds up not being the year). FOR starter, cost controlled w 4.5 years of control. Likely to be held for the same reasons as Scherzer and the Nats, but could be an interesting swap of assets if someone were willing to value him similarly to the above (Gore/Urias/++)

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  adlenon

He’s controllable through 2023. The price on him will be astronomical and they’ll be a potential wild-card team in 2020. I don’t see the motivation for either the Reds or a trading partner here.

adlenon
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

It should absolutely be astronomical, and that is why they should be listening. Anthony Desclafani would have had a sky high trade value 3 years ago, and a strong argument could have been made to trade him then (I made that argument at the time), and he ended up spending the next seasons hurt. Pitchers are volatile. As a small market team, there can be value in spreading your resources out (see Tampa Rays model). Now, this only works if someone is willing to offer enough value. It is unlikely you would pull the trigger, but essential that you listen.

CC AFCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  adlenon

Are we sure the price would or should be astronomical? The dude’s K% is up but his walk rate is sky high, which leaves his xFIP basically exactly where it’s been the last two years. He’s just getting luckier on babip, hr/fb and lob% than he has before now. Not to mention that he throws hard as hell and velocity is a factor in injuries, so all those years of control are not nearly as certain to produce value as if he were a position player. I doubt anyone would trade for him as if he’s a stone cold lock to be an ace going forward

adlenon
7 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

You have 4.5 Years of control. If you gave up the same value for Scherzer (also high velocity) and he got hurt, you lose almost all of the value. If he needed tommy john tomorrow, he wouldn’t pitch again until the final year of the contract, at which point he would offer zero surplus value on his contract, let alone value given up to acquire him. When it comes to pitchers, year of control is an insurance policy against injury, not a detriment to giving up any value for them…

If you want to point to babip, hr/fb and lob% for historical, you may want to see that the guy hasn’t had walk problems before. There was an article in May walking through changes he is making that are suppressing those metrics intentionally.

CC AFCMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  adlenon

So if I regress the bb% in his favor, I get to also regress the k%, which is also historically high for him, right? I’m not saying he’s a bad pitcher, of course, just that I think there a lot of holes in his profile that make it clear he’s not a super stud ace (yet).

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

Valuing guys with that much control gets a little wacky because anyone who values team control so much that they’ll pay for 4+ years of team control also values holding onto their high-majors prospects.

My short answer is that yes, it should be astronomical, just like the return for Matthew Boyd should be astronomical. I don’t buy the BABIP as being sustainable, but he keeps the ball on the ground, which is good. If you think he’s a 3.5-win pitcher this year (and I do) then you’re looking at getting a guy who averages being a solid #3 (with some upside). If he makes, say, $40M though arbitration, that’s…what? $110M in surplus value?

The basic theory of what I just wrote up also applies to Boyd as well, except that the Tigers are probably 1-2 years behind the Reds in terms of returning to contention and Boyd’s probably better (although that fly-ball profile isn’t ideal for a lot of teams).

But my first point still holds…deals like the one for Castillo and Boyd don’t happen because teams that would value all those years of control also value their prospects. The resources being exchanged are too similar too each other, and so it’s harder to find a win-win deal. And the difference between trading deSclafani then (or Michael Fulmer then) and trading Castillo/Boyd now is that both teams are a lot closer to being at the end of the rebuilding tunnel than the beginning.

Shalesh
7 years ago
Reply to  adlenon

Probably similar to 3.5 years of Quintana for Eloy Jimenez (FV60+) and Dylan Cease (FV50). Quintana was a 4WAR pitcher at the time and Castillo is more like a 3.5 WAR pitcher. I think years-of-control has an asymptote/limit in trade return, where after say 3 years, more years gets you more filler but doesn’t improve the headline guys. Thus, I agree with SadTrombone that it doesn’t make sense to trade Castillo now. The Reds could trade him at the end of 2020 for about the same return as they get now, assuming he stays healthy and continues to perform as a 3.5 WAR pitcher. (Trade him now if you really need to get those extra FV40+ or FV45 guys, but does that really require immediacy?)

Kind of like what the Mariners got for Edwin Diaz’s 4 years of control. The Mets could trade him at the end of 2020 for about what they gave after banking 2 years of his performance in 2019 & 2020.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

I’ve noticed something similar to this as well. The value of 4 years of control is less than 3 years of control, which is less than 2 years of control, etc. Some of that is because it’s further off in the future and a guy can get hurt in between now and then, but I think at least some of that is subjective too. And beyond that, once you get guys who have 4+ years of team control the asset is suddenly starting to look more similar to the prospects who teams are exchanging. There’s comparative advantage for getting 2.5 years of Max Scherzer compared to 7 years of Forrest Whitley, depending on what your tolerance for risk and timeline to competiveness is. The distinction between Whitley and Castillo is still noticeable, but generally speaking you’re edging closer to a challenge trade.

My gut-level instinct on this is that if you trade someone mid-season with 1.5 years left you’re maximizing your return. You get a mid-season premium, the “controllable” premium, plus all the value you got out of them before. That doesn’t mean you should wait that long, but it does mean that if you aren’t that far from contention, trading a guy like Castillo right now is not necessarily an ideal use of resources.

TomahawkChopperMember since 2020
7 years ago

Does it make sense to consider playoff value in assessing a trade value? Most teams that would add Scherzer are already in the playoff mix, and having him in either a wild card or a short series is immensely valuable.

The ultimate goal is to win the World Series, not to accumulate as much regular season WAR as efficiently as possible.

therealryan1Member since 2024
7 years ago

For me this is the key question. How do different teams determine his value based off what their model says? If I am a team like Atlanta, Philly, Milwaukee, or Colorado: he is much more valuable to me than he is to the Dodgers and I know that, but do does Washington. Then again he could be just as valuable since they wont have to face him in a series. But for the other four (presume at least 1 of them will be in a wild card spot,) he becomes INCREDIBLY valuable even if for that one game.

johnbitzerMember since 2018
7 years ago

Absolutely. You have to factor in the October premium, which adds a potential extra month (and arguably the most important month at that). I have a site that explains it here: https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-major-leaguers/

brood550
7 years ago

I’d like to see him anchoring the rotation in the Bronx.

brood550
7 years ago
Reply to  brood550

Would a combination of Loaisiga, Bird, Valera, and Frazier get the ball rolling? I get the asking price. But he’s on the wrong side of 30 and has 200+IP each of the last 5 years. He also has a large financial cost as well.

Shalesh
7 years ago
Reply to  brood550

LOL, no. Maybe you can get AL WAR Leader Lance Lynn for that, though even that would be doubtful. Bird and Valera have near-zero value.

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
7 years ago
Reply to  brood550

no, no it wouldnt

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  brood550

Step 1: Go to THE BOARD
Step 2: Select NYY
Step 3: Select Garcia, Seigler, Contreras, and Gil–in addition to Frazier.
Step 4: Pick up the phone and call the Nationals. With those five, you now have enough that they will even counteroffer. Expect to give up one of the teenaged CFs, Schmidt, or both as well before you’re done.

And now you know why it’s not happening.

GeorgeMember since 2021
7 years ago
Reply to  brood550

Im a Nats Fan, So this is maybe biased, but I don’t think Mike Rizzo even calls back unless the deal is fronted by Gleybar. I think we say Torres, Frazier, Garcia,Schmidt, and a few rookie ball fliers . We are talking about the current best pitcher in baseball who can legitimately change a postseason series.

insidb
7 years ago
Reply to  George

You’re also talking about way more than what the White Sox got for Sale who was way cheaper and younger.

CliffH
7 years ago
Reply to  George

My instinct is to say Torres is worth more than Scherzer by himself. 4.5 years of a cost-controlled 4+ WAR still improving shortstop? I don’t know.

insidb
7 years ago
Reply to  CliffH

Of interesting note: given that Torres is 13 years younger than Scherzer, how do we weigh aging curves?

Torres is before will have his control expire before his prime, and Max should be on the downside.

Does Max’s injury risk as a pitcher or being in the danger zone of aging curves outweigh the fact that a team will likely lose Torres before he maximizes his production?

insidb
7 years ago
Reply to  brood550

Bird won’t move the needle, and Loaisiga is currently hurt.

Frazier should be the centerpiece.

JoncarlosMember since 2017
7 years ago

To get 55.8m in present salary, are you ignoring the $15mil/year from 2021-2028?

jyjjy
7 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

Would the Nats actually be responsible for the signing bonus if he is traded or are you just assuming they will eat it? Also how are you calculating the 55.8 million value? Cots says the 19-21 deferred salaries are worth roughly 86.5 million in real money according to mlb and the union. That’s 72 million prorated to 2.5 years.

tonywagnerMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  jyjjy

The signing bonus is the responsibility of the original signing team, even if it’s deferred.

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
7 years ago

i think i would do torres+ for scherzer. i dont think it will happen, but i think you can stomach the loss of torres more so than some of the other teams main pieces. the yankees have a stacked lineup, torres might bat 8th or 9th in their full lineup. the red sox would hypothetically part with benintendi, one of the biggest cogs in their lineup. my point is that the yankees could handle a loss of a player like torres better than most teams

al_beast
7 years ago

There’s really no chance the Yankees would give up gleyber in a pennant race. He’s been arguable their most productive hitter since he’s been called up. It would start with Frazier and they’d still have a lot of work to do

v2miccaMember since 2016
7 years ago

You know what would be an interesting hypothetical? Imagine if the MLB instituted something similar to the Premier Leagues player loaning system. Instead of trading Scherzer, the Nationals could simply loan him out for the remainder of the season once they felt they had crossed the competitive threshold. So, the question then becomes what could Washington get back for half a season and play-offs of Scherzers services.

FS54
7 years ago
Reply to  v2micca

MLB needs to look into this. I have been saying the same thing for years now. Can you imagine Greinke or Scherzer, etc on a playoff team for few starts? that will definitely liven up some of these races.

v2miccaMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  FS54

The Annual Mike Trout sweepstakes would be fun.

barrybondsjuicedforoursins
7 years ago

The Twins could do this.

TKDCMember since 2016
7 years ago

In my wildest dreams I could not see the Braves giving the Nats multiple of their very best prospects and even more so I could not see the Nats give the Braves Scherzer in a million years. Do high end trades between teams that both plan to compete in the short run in the same division ever happen?

tung_twista
7 years ago

Several months ago, Red Sox extended Sale for his 31-35 age season at $145M/5 years ($29M AAV)
And you are telling me that Scherzer’s 34-36 age season is worth $152M/3 years? ($51M AAV)
Come on, man.
We need to seriously stop using $9M/WAR number.
It is irresponsibly lazy.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  tung_twista

I agree, but I also want to point out that the whole trade value system is pegged to that number. This is a really unfortunate problem, and there’s no easy way around it.

johnbitzerMember since 2018
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I agree. Based on my research, you can’t look at dollar-per-WAR generically, or as the only factor.

nenrightMember since 2020
7 years ago

you can’t just pretend the deferred 7/105 million doesnt exist

insidb
7 years ago

I’m having a hard time imagining that any team would even consider such a high cost for Scherzer, especially give the BOS-CWS trade for Sale.

For comparison’s sake:

(at the time of that trade)
Sale
Age: 27
Career: 3 ERA (~2.5 NL)
Contract: $13M/year (3 years left)

(today)
Scherzer
Age: 35
Career: 3.2 ERA
Contract: $30M/year (2.5 years left)

CWS only got 4 lottery ticket prospects for Sale and 0 major leaguers, headlined by Moncada and Kopech. Why would teams part with proven, young major leaguers for a pitcher that is EIGHT years older and owed $20MM more a year? Any GM worth his salt will point to the Sale deal as a comp and salary, aging curves, and track record as a reason to surrender less value. Moncada started to produce real value, three years after the trade, Kopech is injured, and the other parts have generated much value.

WAS should ask for the stars, so they fall to the moon, but we’ve seen deals like this before: they didn’t dismantle MLB rosters or come with such a hefty salary.

insidb
7 years ago
Reply to  insidb

Yikes, that’s a lot of downvotes for what Brian Cashman and Keith Law have already endorsed lol.

hearn
7 years ago

Andujar + Frazier + Deivi Garcia. Book it.
Thats BY FAR more than a Top 20 Prospect.

Gleyber Torres is Crazytown. No way in hell.

insidb
7 years ago
Reply to  hearn

People don’t want to hear it, but Cashman has already endorsed this position.

I honestly don’t know what logic would drive people to look completely past market comparables, because that’s exactly what GMs do…

johnbitzerMember since 2018
7 years ago

The initial estimate here is similar to the estimate on my new site: https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/

Based on my research, it’s much more complicated than just estimating WAR and dollar-per-WAR. You also have to factor in injury risk and take a more sober look at the aging curve, which is very real for over-30 pitchers.