Nationals & Cubs & Rockies

Trades

Players

Back

Nationals & Cubs & Rockies

January 4, 2020

Nationals

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Arenado 28 Majors 3B Very low 7.0 250.2 234 16.2 14.2 27.7 41.2
Baez 26 Majors SS 2B Low 2.0 72.3 23.2 49.1 47.1 55.3 63.6
Bryant 27 Majors 3B Low 2.0 69.8 46.2 23.6 23.6 27 30.5
Contreras 27 Majors C Low 3.0 27.5 11.7 15.8 13.8 17.6 21.3
Freeland 26 Majors SP Medium 3.0 19.4 6.2 13.2 9.3 12.3 15.2
Gray 27 Majors SP Medium 2.0 53.4 15.7 37.7 32.4 37.7 43

Cubs

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Amador Minors 2B 5.4 4.3 5.4 6.5
Rainey Majors RHRP Medium 5.0 12.7 6.9 5.8 3.8 5.8 7.8
Robles 22 Majors OF Very low 5.0 117.9 33.8 84.1 82.1 89 95.9
Ross 26 Majors SP Medium 2.0 10.9 3.5 7.4 5.9 7.4 8.8

Rockies

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Abbott Minors RHP 4.1 3.3 4.1 4.9
Garcia Minors 2B 2 1.6 2 2.4
Kieboom Minors 2B 3B 76.2 61 76.2 91.4
4 Comments
  1. Dave Sampsell

    This seems totally reasonable. The Nats get themselves Arenado and Bryant (who can play RF in DC) and Baez who can maybe handle 2B for them (although the Nats did have to sacrifice a guy who has yet to make any impact in the majors at 2B to make this all work). The Nats also get two more starting pitchers. In turn the Cubs get a 2nd year player with some nice upside and some table scraps and the Rockies get themselves that rookie 2B that no one can be certain will pan out as well as some table scraps. So glad this site is here to make clear to everyone that prospects are to be uber valued and that proven established stars who have already produced are simply not worth it.

    • John Bitzer

      Your sarcasm is obvious in your comments. If money were no object, you would have a point. Problem is, money is a very serious object, one you are completely ignoring. We have set up the site based on surplus value, assuming fans will understand the concept. Most do. Some don’t.

      • Dave Sampsell

        I actually admire what you are trying to do here, John. And if used appropriately the site can work even if folks want to quibble with some of your valuations. So yes, I’m being a bit of a twat in my tone on these trades. Apologies.

        But the point still stands. Prospects come with massive risk. If you go back and look at the actual performance of the top 10 MLB rated prospects from say 2012 and look at where they are today you’ll see that driven home in spades. One (Cole) is a true star of the game, three others are very productive pros (Wheeler, Castellanos, Bauer) The remaining 6 are nothing better than journeymen players or are out of baseball altogether. These are all guys who are in the primes of their careers. Your site is assigning massive value to prospects who are not in the top 10 rankings of MLB prospects (Kieboom is one example who ranges from around 20 to 50 in rankings). Maybe he is a “star” in the making. There is much greater risk (much, much greater) that he just is a serviceable ML player (or worse).

        The above trade drives home this notion in spades. 11 years of control on Robles (who was mediocre offensively last season as a rookie in many regards) and Kieboom (who was awful in his cup of coffee debut and isn’t even a rookie yet) cannot rationally be converted from a performance standpoint into 7 years of Arenado (he can opt out in 2 years btw so you can’t presume he comes with 7 years), 2 years of Bryant, 2 years of Baez, 3 years of Willson Contreras, 2 years of Gray and 3 years of Freeland. You’re looking at 3 MVP caliber players and 11 years of control on them, tossing in 3 years of the most productive offensive catcher in baseball and two solid and established ML starters. Per your site that’s an acceptable trade.

        Your site should be tweaked to measure on field performance associated with the players in question and better account for the risk associated with players who while promising have not yet performed at the big league level. Teams pay up for established performance for a reason. Never mind some of your “values” seem unfair.

        Another example. 7 years of Nolan Arenado (which is what you are presuming despite his opt out clause) no matter what contract he has signed is not a pure performance swap for 2 years of Kris Bryant in any universe. Maybe the Rockies primary interest is to dump the longer term commitment, but if it isn’t then that straight up trade from a performance perspective is completely out of wack.

  2. Tom Patom

    All of your trade proposal is not considering each team’s payroll flexibility. So dumb.

Submit a Comment