The Pirates' Offseason: Why You Shouldn't Expect Much

One way of thinking about it is, market value is what you can get. On that definition you can’t get less than market value.

Another way of thinking about it is, suppose you have reason to think that a player is going to tank, and you think that other GMs don’t know that. Then yes, you should take a discount on his apparent market value to get rid of him before he tanks. (As the Giants may have done with Tim Alderson.)

Another way of thinking about it is, everyone has the possibility of tanking. That possibility is factored into their market value. Then I don’t think Burgher is saying you take less than market value — just that you can’t count on other teams valuing your player as if he’ll continue to hit exactly as he has.

In theory, it might be better to value trades based on the information available at the time, but in practice (maybe barring something obvious as a player immediately suffering a freak injury that destroys their ability) I think it’s best to judge them on results. Did Huntington cannily judge that McLouth was overrated or did he get lucky in dealing him just before he went in the tank? It’s really hard to know. So I think we’re best off saying that NH did well to get rid of a guy who’s gone on to do nothing for some guys who still have potential — and conversely really screwed the pooch on the Bay return. After all, if what a player has done since the trade has little to do with the value they’ve established, that applies to Andy LaRoche as much as to Nate McLouth.

(If I had to pick yes or no to your question, I’d pick yes)

Primarily:

[ A ] You never know someone is going to tank, but you might expect that he’d settle in at a level significantly lower than the current level.

[ B ] You should consider taking less than perceived value if you think that [ A ] will happen, yes. Naturally, it depends on many things— his current contract, the possibility of another team paying more, whether to simply keep him and hoping for picks later, what your scouts think of the players coming back, and how likely it is that you’ll beat that later, etc.

*Upton, not crawford

Chollie was League average.

How was Nate?

FIP- 99

Pretty much league average, which McClouth was not.

and nearly head of scouting

you need to mention a name that could actually happen. Profar isnt going anywhere for anyone. Elvis Andrus, maybe.

But anyway, you wouldn’t trade a closer with a 2-win ceiling, who’s about to get expensive, for a ~2.5 win 1B, when the alternative is maybe 1 win at that position?

No, because I think I can do better at shopping that particular asset. Recent team history to the contrary, 1Bs are fairly easy to find. Go get a shortstop or a young third baseman with some pop or help for the rotation instead.

But anyway, you wouldn’t trade a closer with a 2-win ceiling, who’s about to get expensive, for a ~2.5 win 1B, when the alternative is maybe 1 win at that position?

No, I’d try and get a SS, a young 3B with some pop, or rotation help instead.

Alex Presley was included because he was the replacement for Tabata’s injury, and his injury subsequently led to steady playing time for Ryan Ludwick and Xavier Paul, due to Derrek Lee’s injury pulling Garrett Jones out of the OF and onto 1B. Domino effect.

The difference between Jaramillo and McKenry is negligible, granted, but the difference betweeen Jaramillo and the assembled mass of Brown, Toreagas and Fryer is not. Jaramillo was at least a proven MLB back-up, while none of those three had even proven competent at AAA.

I’m assuming it is more of a, “he will force Cutch out of CF because he is better,” use of the word.

Do you really believe that 240 games of Texeira>640 of Cutch? Or do you believe that [Moore, Jennings, Lee and McGee]>[Jones, Andrus, Salty, Harrison, and Feliz]? Or do you think that was an impossibly bad trade that we should never expect to see matched?

It does if it means that he’s doing what the owner of the team is telling him to do.

Does that mean he’s right?

Well, he’s seen the team’s books last year, and you haven’t. You must admit that gives him a bit of an edge on you when performing his analysis…

They could negotiate with Doumit at the same time.

No, they couldn’t, because if Fielder got possessed by Venusian brain-worms and agreed to the offer, they’d need Doumit’s money to pay him, and they couldn’t do that if they already gave Doumit’s money to Doumit.

If Prince takes the money and they sign Doumit, then, poor us, we’ll have a line-up with some pop and some depth, and the owners will be about $7M over intended budget for one season.

If NH goes $7M over budget without authorization, he probably gets fired. It’s easy to be cavalier about that kind of shit when it’s not your job on the line.

Bonds’ salary was typically a little over 15% of the Giants’ payroll. It never reached 20%.

What you’re advocating here is an utterly suicidal strategy, which is why nobody’s done it. I repeat: I’d be deeply disappointed if the FO wasted time developing such a stupid idea, much less putting all other moves on hold so they could set aside the money to pursue it.

I don’t know the percentages, but the Giants locked a lot of their payroll in Bonds for years.

I don’t actually care enough about this to look into it all that thoroughly, but from 1998 on, Bonds was never 30% or more of the Giants’ payroll.

In 1998, for example, he earned $8.916M, which was 18.3% of the Giants’ $48.5M payroll. In 2002, the year his salary bumped up to $15M, he earned 19% of the Giants’ $78.3M payroll. In 2005, when his salary peaked at $22M, it was still only 24.6% of the Giants’ $89.4M payroll.

Besides, competitive advantages come from doing something that no one else has done.

Lots of people have done it – they just didn’t experience any notable success after doing so.

Hence, there is more value in spending big on a single player.

It’s a moot point because big-value single players aren’t willing to sign with perennial losers in small markets, even when they have the highest bid. We could plan on dragging Jesus down out of heaven and forcing him to play shorstop for us – that’d probably work great, too, if it weren’t impossible.

At his peak salary, in 2005, Bonds made just under 25% of the Giants’ total payroll.

Also, he only played in 14 games, and the Giants went 75-87.

The best six-man rotation money can buy in February usually has guys like Kyle Davies or Scuffy Moehler in it.