Padres & Pirates
Submitted by: twinfield10
Padres
| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ji-Man Choi | 32 | Majors | 1B | Medium | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.7 | -0.2 | -0.2 | -0.2 | -0.1 | |
| Rich Hill | 43 | Majors | SP | Medium | 0.4 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
Total Value:
0.3
Pirates
| Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jay Groome | 25 | Minors | SP | 2.7 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 3.2 | |||||
| Kevin Hacen | 17 | Minors | 3B | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Total Value:
3
Comments
5A note on these kinds of trades, and something that I wish the creators would talk about, surplus value is an important concept, yes. But it's a less important concept (or at least it is altered) on these kinds of deals. Talent is not freely available at the deadline. We all know that. But, at the deadline, more important is on-field production. A player that's underwater financially, but who still provides solid on-field production, is going to be a desired player. Don't just ignore salary and surplus value (the cheaper of two equal players is still going to have more value) but the calculus changes where on-field production in reaching and performing in the playoffs (which isn't compensated for financially) becomes, relatively, more valuable than over the course of a full season or multiple seasons. That's why we see these "overpays" like this. Teams trying to acquire those marignal wins to get them into the playoffs are willing to pay above market value for them. Teams getting players to perform IN the playoffs, are definitely willing to pay above regular season market value for those wins.
NEWSLETTER? SURE, SIGN ME UP!
Totally agree! Think also adding some type of "fit" to these deals would be a neat addition as well. One team with 3 top tier OF prospects won't value another top tier OF prospect the same way a team that has 0 top tier OF prospects. Would be interesting to see what adjustments one could do when targeting fit, value, and current standings.
Completely agree. We bake in what we call the "October bonus" to the field value, since it's gravy and doesn't cost the team anything, but still part of the value calculous. Also agree that the trade deadline works a little differently than the offseason, due to the emphasis on contenders going for it. That said, we do adjust for that -- a little. The flip side is that, as you get closer to the deadline, price imbalances start to stabilize, as both parties are motivated by the clock. So a lot of fair deals do happen as a result, which means we can't just assume everyone overpays.
Great to know! Another question for you as well: it seems like this year we are seeing a serious "seller's market" where the "buyers" are overpaying for MLB level players. Do y'all keep any year-to-year stats showing the average surplus/deficit that buyers or sellers are realizing for each season? Would be interesting to see how this year compares to other years and if that "buyers/sellers" market could also be baked in on deadline day.
First, thanks for the reply I was listening to the most recent podcast this morning where you talking about this a bit. I just wish it was, somehow, made more obvious to the masses. I see (I know, never read the comments) a lot of people saying that so-and-so player is "trash" because their contract is in the negatives, but the player is still productive, it's just that the contract is bad. And if it's a deadline rental, who cares? Teams have that money. Also, since I, maybe, have you ear. You know what would be awesome? A search bar on the main page (or header) that would allow you to bring up a player page. It's a few too many clicks right now to get there. Thanks for the good work. I wish more people would use the site and have a bit more nuanced opinions on players and their value.