Dodgers
| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Glasnow | 30 | Majors | SP | Low | 6 | 184.9 | 165 | 19.9 | 15.9 | 19.9 | 23.9 | |
| Manuel Margot | 29 | Majors | OF | Medium | 1 | 9.5 | 12 | -2.5 | -3 | -2.5 | -2 | |
| Cash | 4 |
Total Value:
21.4
Rays
| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Pepiot | 26 | Majors | SP | Medium | 6 | 43.3 | 17.9 | 25.3 | 20.3 | 25.3 | 30.4 | |
| Jonny DeLuca | 25 | Majors | OF | 6 | 14.9 | 10 | 4.8 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 5.8 |
Total Value:
30.1
Comments
24
Here's the real trade version of this, updated with the surplus value estimate of the extension. This assumes the Dodgers will pick up the $30M option in 2029; if they don't, Glasnow can exercise a player option at $20M, which in theory would increase the surplus. The Rays are also kicking in $4M in cash attached to Margot's contract. So it's a moderate overpay in all for LAD, but one that seems reasonable.
Also: we originally had Pepiot with 6 years of control. He actually has 5. But we didn't want to change his number midstream. With 5, his surplus number would be 19. So the model has this as 21.4 vs. 23.8. Either way, it's accepted.
Fwiw, my vote would be to change the number midstream. You’re apparently changing the Glasnow value to reflect the new information that the trade was contingent on an extension (which I’m actually not certain was true). Why not change the Pepiot value to reflect the ‘new information’ that there was an error in your database?
I think the trade should have been posted with the Rays trading him to the Dodgers with 1 year of control but I see you elected to trade him to the Dodgers with him having already signed his extension. It looks like the Rays signed him to an extension then traded him to the Dodgers. But he didn’t sign his extension with the Rays and then get traded. At least that’s not the way I’ve seen it.
The reason we did it that way is because it was contingent on an extension, which upped the surplus a bit, which is a benefit to the Dodgers. The trade would not have been completed without that happening, so we had to re-run the numbers this way.
That may be a good trade but probably won't happen.
are you real?
One more important point: Glasnow's surplus is either 14 (if the team exercises the 2028 option) or 24 (if they don't, but Glasnow exercises his player option). For the purposes of posting here, we split the difference.
It think that the Dodgers don't need anyone else after the Ohtani deal.
I think your model added 25m 2x the deal cannot exceed 5 yrs.
I like this deal for the Dodgers, but maybe it's because I'm missing something with Pepiot? He hasn't been particularly good at any level and he's already 26. Is he a case where stats don't reflect the scouting?
? 2.74 era in 78 innings (10 starts), 80 k’s seems like a good start as a pro.
10 starts can be cherry-picked to let Pepiot's play to strengths. Beware Small sample stats in age of sabermetrics
Premier spin rate, premier extension. The Rays seek that out.
On what planet has Ryan Pepiot not been particularly good at any level??? His numbers in both the minors and majors are very solid. And he has at least one ++pitch (changeup).
Not a fan of trading away DeLuca and receiving Margot. I think that Margot will be a part of another trade, like we've seen with other players this offseason.
MM splits vs LHPs fits 3 LHB Ofs (including Busch @ LF Part Time)
Dodgers paid up for talent and I suspect they will be really happy they did. Glas is a legit Ace and is primed for a huge year. As a Rays fan I hate to see him go, but I understand the Rays model and appreciate that 2024 isn’t really the year for them to push all their chips in. Pepiot should be a solid addition to the Rays rotation and DeLuca replaces Margot (and perhaps Aroz) as the RHB COF going forward. Good trade for everyone, including Glas who is now “comfortable” financially.
Do you think they’ll still trade Arozarena? Not sure why they would since he’s still cheap and has 3 years of control, but I guess it is the Rays we’re talking about. They shouldn’t have anymore payroll concerns though after dumping Glasnow and Margot
The Rays really need pitching. They now have 5 competent starting outfielders, plus Harold Ramirez who is a part time outfielder. JLowe, Siri, Raley, Aroz, and DeLuca. I would be surprised if one of Aroz, Paredes, or Diaz isn't traded to help fill out the rotation with long term assets.
Also their payroll is still 15 million above record
I think there is a 75% chance they'll trade Aroz this year. (1) Their payroll is still 20% higher than it has ever been on OD before, (2) Aroz is one of the more replaceable "big salary" guys on the team, as both L.Raley and J.Lowe outhit him last year, and Aroz is arb eligible and subject to another big raise next year (and the year after), while comparable "big salary" guys like B.Lowe and Y.Diaz are under contract with small raises (big salary in this case is $9MM), (3) The Rays' 2024 season is likely to be a soft reset with the uncertainty and possible suspension of Franco (the dropoff from Franco to the next guy is 5-10 Wins), the loss of Springs, Rasmussen and McClannahan to IL, and the trade of Glasnow all pushing the Rays to a 10-20 drop in Wins next year, (4) There is entirely too much smoke on a possible Aroz trade for the Rays not to have hung a For Sale sign on him (ie: more than the usual "we are listening" rumors), with Aroz himself stoking rumors by posting a pic of him and Ohtani at the WBC, and (5) the Rays need to open at least 1 roster spot for top prospects C.Mead and J.Caminero.
NEWSLETTER? SURE, SIGN ME UP!
Good model John. The Rays were under no obligation to move Glasnow. They were right to demand the Dodgers overpay.
This is simply not correct: “Glasnow can exercise a player option at $20M, which in theory would increase the surplus”. A player option should never be assumed to increase the surplus for the club side. If Glasnow is worth more than $20, he’ll simply opt out and keep that surplus for himself. He could be worth >$30 and there’s an LAD surplus. Or <$30 but >$20 in which case he walks. Or <$20 in which case it’s an LAD liability. But what you outlined doesn’t make sense in practice. (That said, you continue to generally do very good work. Thank you.)