example1

I'm ready to open a beer and hand it to you through the computer, my friend. Seriously, a NW Microbrew? Shot of whiskey? Guinness? Whiskey? Name it! I actually have said that, but not in this thread. I said it initially when the idea of trading for Santana and Miguel Cabrera came out. I have backed off somewhat because, frankly, upon further introspection, I wouldn't wake up angry if the Santana for Buchholz trade happened tonight. I would be happy, and probably slightly happier going into next year and the year after. The year after that I would be longing for Buchholz, and since, at that time, Buchholz will be 25, I suspect I would be longing for him for a long time after. I DID notice that you took Buchholz out of the equation, but I figured you did so because there were no solid PECOTA projections, for either 2007 or moving forward given his small sample size, and it was therefore hard to predict with any quantitative certainty how good he will be. So how did you come up with his value relative to Roy Halladay? If it is too complicated or not necessarily pertinent to this thread, feel free to send me a PM. Its the kind of analysis I've been wanting for a long time (namely, how to determine the value of a player in some form, be it WARP or VORP or PRAA, or whatever, if they don't play in that league). I don't need a long tutorial, but a simple explanation would be great. The closest I could come was to show that Buchholz's minor league numbers were better than those of Oswalt, Santana and Peavy: Wish I had used VORP!! People were saying that Ellsbury + Buchholz for Cabrera or Santana was a "no brainer".

Yeah, that's really sad. As a 28 year old myself I have that twinge of 'it could have been me'. Life is paranoia-inducing, huh? Anyway, rest in peace man.

JHB, I wish I had a little more time instead of running to work because I would, in usual fashion, respond point by point to your well thought-out post. Bravo, again. I understand your analysis, and I see your point. But, unfortunately, I don't think your point disproves what I was saying. If Beckett's value was highest in 2003, then we're talking about his value after he's thrown 273 IP in the majors. Beckett wasn't a rookie after the 2003 season, he had already thrown more than 100 IP in two consecutive seasons. So Beckett's high 2003 value is likely equivalent to Buchholz's value after this season or next. The relevant question would be "was Beckett's value the highest after his 2001 season?" Or was it higher in 2003? I agree that in terms of financial value it was highest earlier on, but would the Red Sox have acquired a minor-league Josh beckett by dealing away a current SP when Beckett was 21? I don't think so. I think they would have waited for him to 'prove himself' through his 21-22 seasons before dealing away anything 'established' (I put quotes around things I don't necessarily agree with ). I think that sometimes it is useful to reinvestigate the word "value" because there is sabermetric or financial value (i.e., looking at statistics and projections to predict how much money should be spent--relevant to teams that are hypersensitive to such 'objective' analysis). Then there is something that could be called "shock value" or "PR value" or something like that. I believe the value that DAS was referring to was the later, due to Buchholz having had a tremendous minor league season and having thrown a no-hitter. I think your analysis is really good, but I truly do not think that every team out there looks at deals that way. I think that if Buchholz were to come out and go 18-5 with a 3.40 ERA and 220Ks in 200 IP, then his sabermetric/financial value will be lower, as he's older, less cost controlled, etc., but his PR value would be enormous. Other teams would come after him very hard, making HIM the center of a trade deal rather than using him as one piece to land a more established star. So, there were times in the past when Santana's financial value was higher than it is now. When he was younger, under cheapish contract for longer, etc., but his trade value is bolstered by his steady performance and dominance in a tough league, including last year. My guess is that the Red Sox have to navigate between these varied types of value all the time, based on who they are negotiating with. I agree with you, JHB, that the type you discussed is the only one which should matter when they are talking about acquiring players, but it is not the only one which should matter when dealing players. The Sox should--and undoubtedly do--take advantage of 'hype' and 'mystique' when dealing with teams that--let's be honest here--do not have the financial ability or current PR standing that allows them to hold firm on popular players who may be demanding more money than they are actually worth. In other words, I think that after one MLB season this talk of dealing Buchholz + Crisp + Bowden + Youkilis for Santana would be more like Buchholz + Crisp for Santana, or at worst Buchholz + Crisp + Bowden. I really do. Right now other teams can use the "Buchholz isn't established" argument, in the face of any otherwise "rational" rationale you may bring my way. Next year they cannot. I understand we're not talking about next year, and there is a time to pull the trigger, and that is now. But in terms of VALUE, in terms of being a central piece of a deal that will be acceptable to a team like Minn, Buchholz's value will progress even more. He will still be cheap, he will still be young, but he will have that all-important (to others) year of experience where they can watch him striking out a hitter per inning at the MLB level. It seems relevant to look at a player's ability to bring back other pieces in a trade as part of his value. If Buchholz + A + B + C lands you Santana now, and Buchholz + A lands you Santana now, and A, B, and C all stay the same, then Buchholz's value would have increased. My guess is that the Sox don't think Buchholz's trade value is at its apex. Perhaps they are aware of how financially valuable he is as a cost controlled young pitcher, but they know that after a good season Buchholz's name will carry more weight with teams. Francisco Liriano--if not injured--would have been more valuable on the trade market after the 2006 season than he ever had been previously, even if "financially" he was less valuable. It becomes a difference in words and usage, but it is a dichotomy that I think still exists. Most fans do not look at value in terms of WARP over the next few years. They just don't. They look at value in terms of "do I want to go see that guy play?" and Buchholz's value in that regard is not as high as it will be if he has a good year or two in the bigs. I love Santana and would love him on this team. I would be ecstatic if they got him without dealing Buchholz (even for Lester would be okay), I just worry that they will be UNDERSELLING on Buchholz if he is only worth Santana with 3 other established players going along. He's worth more than that.

Buchholz is more valuable than Ellsbury. A potential ace starting pitcher (those words were never used about Papelbon or Lester) is more valuable than a high-OBP speedster with limited power. They're both very valuable, but Buchholz is better. To say that Buchholz's value is as high as it will ever be is simply silly. Was Josh Beckett's value as high as it ever was when he was getting ready to come into the league? No. His value is higher now than it has been in the past. If Buchholz continues to produce at the relative level (i.e., continues to be as much better than hitters in his league as he has been) then his value will increase exponentially over the next year or two. Papelbon's value is higher now than it has ever been too, and it wouldn't have been fair to say that his value in 2005 was "higher than it will ever be again".

Ellsbury's speed is SO good that he can bat leadoff, AND steal, and not regularly take the bat out of Papi's hand. He is faster (i.e., a better basestealer) than either Crisp or Lugo. Ellsbury and Pedroia will be an absolute L/R terror for the rest of the league.

Nothing wrong with this one. Lowell will be a solid player at a reasonable price who, if I'm not mistaken, is more than eligible to be traded if necessary in the future. Otherwise, he should be a fine veteran 3B, with a nicely adapted bat for Fenway. I guess next year's opening day lineup is more or less solidified already. Ellsbury Pedroia Ortiz Manny Lowell Drew Youkilis Varitek Lugo Not bad.

Yep. Go for it. A name-recognition type guy, give him the chance to win a WS, and if it doesn't work out then he can just leave. No brainer.

Why would the Red Sox "fall" for that? It seems like the chances of the sox grossly overpaying for Lowell in years or money are more remote than the chance that Lowell says "SURE, I'll take 4 years 15 million from the Yankees!!" Why even take that chance and squander what is, as you pointed out, a fair amount of wasted money coming off the books?

Yeah, cause Yankee fans are so utterly devoted to A-Rod. Don't kid yourself, despite his tremendous talent he never won the hearts of the Yankee faithful and was seen as a symptom of their recent non WS finishes. He was getting booed two seasons ago. That said, the Yankees should be happy to have A-ROd helping them to break in the new park.

They believe they have the counterpart to Beckett. His name is Daisuke Matsuzaka. Compare him to 2006 Beckett: wow. [table] |IP | H | R | ER | HR | K | BB | ERA | GmScr | AVG | OBP | SLG |OPS| Matsuzaka | 204.2 | 191|100| 100 |25| 201 | 80 | 4.40 | 53 |.246|.326|.405|.731| Beckett | 204.2 |191|120| 114 |36| 158 | 74 | 5.01 | 50 |.245|.317|.450|.767|[/table] Amazing that Matsuzaka apparently didn't give up a single unearned run this year? Weird. He was vastly superior in K's, not even close, and at no noticeable expense in OPS. I think those who have studied pitching and pitchers can see that Matsuzaka has a tremendous talent despite his occasional lack of command and the fact that he doesn't throw 97 like Beckett can. I think he will eventually put it all together; the guy is absolutely a competetor like Beckett. His stuff isn't as overpowering, but it is, it its own way. When he's throwing strikes with 3 pitches he is nearly unhittable and guys start going to "just put it in play" which is how Beckett both learned to keep his runs down and also go longer in games. Dice-K's two biggest problems were his tendency to have bad innings and his inability to go as deep a team would like from its top starters. Otherwise, he was as unhittable and dominant as the league's best.

Not if A-Rod is one of the salacious 11 FA that is involved in the performance-enhancing drug investigation. It just dawned on me that this is a real possibility. It would explain a number of things (including the Ruthian numbers, his gargantuan size, the bizarre Boras-less return to the Yankees and the quickness with which he returned to them). Of course, many good players used steroids, and probably a number that I like. Also, I'm not one to implicate someone without proof, and I don't have proof. But it is a bizarre turn of events at a time when we know there is PLENTY of tumult beneath the FA (and MLB ) surface, which would have a HUGE impact on A-Rods FA value. Also, the most wonderful thing would be the Yankees with 10-years of a deflated, adoration hungry A-Rod at 27m per season. One can hope, right? :dunno: Begin needless destruction of example1 for even THINKING about such a thing..... now.

Yep, done deal. Who cares? The Yankees didn't stay true to their "we're not negotiating if he goes to FA", A-Rod ditched his agent, and ended up crawling back on his hands and knees. Losers deserve each other I suppose. Now the questoin is Lowell or Cabrera?

Yeah, that CLE, CLE, CLE, CLE, NYY, NYY, NYY stretch for the last 7 games of the year ought to be interesting. That Japan trip is concerning, at least in terms of performance. I think it is the right move for the franchise however.

I'm pretty sure this poll won't be indicative of the majority of Red Sox nation, due to the analytical way that many here look at player values. Most will miss Lowell greatly and are in no way prepared to accept A-Rod as a Sox. Tough s***, in my opinion.

You think further MVP type seasons for A-Rod are unlikely? Or Lowell?

I don't trust Konerko and I don't think he'll be anywhere near Cabrera or A-Rod. I guess it depends on what the rest of the FOs plans are, but I think they're shooting to solidify the future here.

I like Lowell, but a 2 year deal, 3 MAX would be appropriate. He may be a great clubhouse guy, and I really believe he is. In fact, in terms of still being 'playable' I would rate Lowell above Damon (doesn't need the speed at 3B ) and Pedro (who we all know was about to fall apart). I really feel like Lowell either owes it to the Sox to take the deal (without the 4th year) or to say "ya know, I felt the Sox made a nice offer but I wanted that extra year" to keep the homers and reactionaries from getting too upset with the Sox FO for having their limit and sticking to it. Now A-Rod. The guy is a monster. I think he'll be willing to take less money than he would otherwise have received (30m seems likely and reasonable). I don't think that the Sox will ever be able to completely rely on A-Rod to carry the team. he will need other players around him to reduce the pressure, but that is a given anyway for a team like the Sox. I'm pretty sure the FO is aware of that need. Remember, when they were ready to trade for him a few years ago, they were going to put Ordonez and Ortiz around him. That would have been sufficient. So I don't get the impression that this FO would just hang him out to dry. Caveat: If there is ANY way to get Miguel Cabrera for a combination of players NOT including Buchholz and Ellsbury, I would do that in a second. Not likely, but I would offer quickly-rising players like Kalish and Masterson, perhaps even some money or a player like Crisp. That's a big IF, but its a big question so it deserves one.

I sure wouldn't. Not with possibilities of Cabrera or, more easily attainable but perhaps more anxiety provoking, A-Rod to fill the spot.

I remember it, though I didn't see the water bottle. I was in the CF bleachers. Gagne actually looked decent, but he had that long at bat to (...opens recesses of useless baseball knowledge) Willits, I think, which he lost when Willits got a base hit. Gagne got the first out, IIRC, and then started to struggle. That was NOT a highlight of the year.

I was at that game and that was a pretty special moment. The game itself was a very good one, until Gagne came in. That was pretty dejecting, but the comeback was impressive. That kid was priceless though. Good call.