Dodgers & Indians

Trades

Players

Back

Dodgers & Indians

January 4, 2020

Dodgers

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Allen 26 Majors OF Medium 5.0 8.7 2.0 6.7 4.7 6.7 8.7
Civale Majors SP Medium 6.0 28.5 18.2 10.3 8.3 12.2 16
Lindor 25 Majors SS Very low 2.0 95.5 41.7 53.8 53.8 63.4 72.9
Luplow 25 Majors OF Medium 5.0 21.6 10.5 10.1 7.9 10.1 12.3

Indians

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Lux Minors SS 85.1 68.1 85.1 102.1
8 Comments
  1. Dave Sampsell

    Since we all know that Gavin Lux is Mike Trout, Mickey Mantle and Nellie Fox all rolled into one big ball of prospect spice, he will command quite the haul from the Cleveland Indians who send along multi-year all-star Francisco Lindor as well as another two big OF pieces and one ML starting pitcher to help finally get LA over the top in their quest to end a World Series drought that stretches back 31 years. No one can be assured exactly how much value Lux will produce, but let’s peg him at some ridiculous price because he’ll make nothing the first two years of his unknowable career. And think of all the money Cleveland will be able to save. Free beer and hot dogs on ownership!

  2. Verbal Kint

    Mildly amusing how upset people get by the dodgers refusal to move Lux for Lindor…

    • Dave Sampsell

      I really don’t care. I’m merely pointing out how this site assigns apparently arbitrary “values” to players who have yet to accomplish anything at the highest level of the sport and presumes their performance comes with zero risk. Players cost money bc their past performance suggests their future performance will be assured. This site by definition presumes those costs are not valid. Will 6 years of Gavin Lux be worth more than 2 of Lindor, 4 of Greg Allen, 5 of Cirvale and 4 of Luplow? The odds massively, by definition, say no. But per this they’ll be about equal on the field, which makes no sense.

      • John Bitzer

        Yeah, no. The values are not arbitrary — they’re based on established research that suggests that a high percentage of top prospects do become quite productive. Yes, there is uncertainty there, but that’s already baked in. It’s probablistic.

        • Dave Sampsell

          I’m not sure how you can really say this John. Again, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but these trades I’m posting drive how that you really don’t fully risk adjust the potential production of guys who have yet to play at the ML level.

          Actually go back in time to 2012, look at the prospect reviews of these players and assign them long term values that you’d use in your site today as if these guys have not thrown a single baseball in MLB yet. Then see how those perceived values actually panned out for these guys who are all now in the “prime” years of their careers.

          1 – Jackson Profar
          2 – Dylan Bundy
          3 – Will Myers
          4 – Taijuan Walker
          5 – Trevor Bauer
          6 – Zack Wheeler
          7 – Gerritt Cole
          8 – Danny Hultzen
          9 – Tyler Skaggs
          10 – Nick Castellanos

          4 really good pros. How long did it take each of them to produce at good to elite levels? The other 6 are either out of baseball for all effective purposes or are mediocre at best performers. That’s under a 50% hit rate. Your site is assigning massive valuations to players who are not even viewed as consensus top 10 prospects. For instance, a 75 valuation to Carter Kieboom who ranked #20 in current rankings.

          On the field can you rationally argue 6 years of “risk adjusted” performance from Carter Kieboom (who was awful in his 11 game cup of coffee debut) is worth the rough equivalent of 6 years of production of Kris Bryant (a player who has averaged 6 WAR a year over his 4.X seasons in MLB)? Because that would be a slight overpay value trade on your site by the Cubs. 3 Kris Bryants for one Carter Kieboom.

          • John Bitzer

            But you’re not getting six years of Bryant — you’re getting either one or two expensive ones, and he has not averaged 6 WAR for 4+ seasons. See my comments on your other posts for more explanation. And you need to double-check your Kieboom ratings. There are multiple ratings sites; you can’t just pick one.

  3. Tom Patom

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

    • Dave Sampsell

      The Dodgers have the payroll flexibility to absorb this trade and not hit the luxury tax. And I’m not the one who fails to account for each team’s salary position on this site. So no, it isn’t, “dumb”. It is showing some flaws in what this site is trying to accomplish, which admittedly is an insanely difficult thing to do. Hopefully they’ll course correct and further modify their site.

Submit a Comment