Indians & Padres & Reds

Trades

Players

Back

Indians & Padres & Reds

July 31, 2019

Indians

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Allen Minors LHP 14.7 11.8 14.7 17.6
Moss Minors LHP 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5
Nova Minors 3B OF 1.4 1 1.4 1.8
Reyes 23 Majors OF Medium 5.3 47.6 22.3 25.3 20.2 25.3 30.4

Padres

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Trammell Minors OF 40.7 32.6 40.7 48.8

Reds

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Bauer 28 Majors SP Medium 1.3 56.4 23.8 32.6 34.6 39.2 43.8
4 Comments
  1. John Bitzer

    This is the updated version of the real-life trade, minus Puig, because this is the only way our simulator would accept it. Our take is the Reds overpaid (which is what Puig would represent), it’s just a matter of how much. They’ve said publicly that they have trouble attracting free agent pitchers to Cincinnati, which is why they previously overpaid for Sonny Gray and Alex Wood.

    To be clear, we’ve also adjusted some of these numbers, so we can’t take credit for this one since our original estimates were a bit off. Trammell was adjusted down for performance, as there is some concern about his low batting average. Reyes was adjusted down to account for the fact that he’s likely a DH going forward. And Bauer was adjusted up to reflect the degree of overpay.

    We can understand this one from the Padres’ point of view, as they need to start consolidating their prospects and young major-leaguers so they can avoid a roster crunch. And it’s obvious from the Indians’ point of view, since they acquire a ton of cheaper, younger talent. The Reds’ view is a head-scratcher, since they overpaid for Bauer, and that’s not even considering the waste of his services for the remainder of this year. So it’s a total gamble on him for 2020, with some additional consolation of a draft pick in 2021 if and when he declines a QO at that point.

    So to be clear, this is the updated, post-mortem version after reflection and more detailed scrutiny.

    • Tommy Long

      More than anything I think this trade is a treatise on Trammell. You adjusted him down and I think that’s right. It’s possible the Reds are even lower than this on him based on the way he’s performed and they’re trying to get out before his value sinks further.

      The way I look at it is either the Padres or Reds overpaid depending on what you think of Trammell but as long as they’re happy with it that’s good.

      Either way, I think it’s clear the Indians did very well.

  2. Will M

    I don’t think it’s always necessary to update values based on trades. There are certain factors you can never account for, such as how individual GMs value individual players. The bottom line is as long as your consistent with your methods, you’re fine. Bad trades happen, and always will. If this was 1991, would you try to equalize the future value of Jeff Bagwell to be roughly equal to Larry Anderson?

    • John Bitzer

      I agree to a point. We recognize that it’s a fool’s game to try to account for every individual GM, so we focus on the aggregate. And the model has worked pretty well in the aggregate.

      But there are two other factors to consider: 1) Human error. Since we’re doing all this manually, we occasionally miss something — in this case, it was that we didn’t factor Trammell’s performance enough or Reyes’ DH profile enough. 2) Even though we’re confident about Bauer’s pre-trade price based on the fundamentals of the model, we have to adjust it now because the Reds overpaid for him. So in theory, they wouldn’t take anything less than that price for him now if some other team wanted him.

      Thanks as always for keeping us honest.

Submit a Comment