Nationals & Dodgers

Trades

Players

Back

Nationals & Dodgers

January 4, 2020

Nationals

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Jansen 31 Majors RHRP Low 2.0 30.1 38.0 -7.9 -7.9 -4.9 -1.9
Kershaw 31 Majors SP Very low 2.0 61.3 62.0 -0.7 0 2.4 4.8
Lux Minors SS 85.1 68.1 85.1 102.1
Taylor 28 Majors OF Low 2.0 19.2 12.5 6.7 4.5 6.7 8.9
Treinen 31 Majors RHRP Low 1.0 8.9 10.0 -1.1 -2 -1.1 -0.2
Turner 34 Majors 3B Low 1.0 25.3 20.0 5.3 3.3 5.3 7.3

Dodgers

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Pineda Minors C 2.1 1.7 2.1 2.5
Robles 22 Majors OF Very low 5.0 117.9 33.8 84.1 82.1 89 95.9
9 Comments
  1. Dave Sampsell

    This two team block buster attempts to move two of the most untouchable players in all of sports between their respective teams. On one side we have Gavin Lux and on the other we have Victor Robles. Given this site has decided Robles, despite having burned a year of service time and producing sort of mediocre on base and slugging as a rookie, is worth more than Lux the Dodgers are going to need to move some more “value” the Nats way in order to get them to take on Lux who has not really played yet at the ML level. So the Nats will also be getting a journeyman pitcher named Clayton Kershaw, a couple of relievers who have never accomplished much, aged and ineffective 3B Justin Turner and an extra outfielder.

    • Will M

      The funny part about a Lux-Robles swap is 1) while you pick on Robles’ accomplishments (without mentioning defense), Lux has done what exactly? And 2) neither team even needs the other player. The Dodgers have Bellinger in CF for days Pollock can’t play, and the Nats have Carter Kieboom as a minor league SS Star prospect looking at other infield positions.

  2. Tom Patom

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

  3. E Schwarz

    I believe CubsFanBudMan is pointing out the discrepancy in values between actual accomplished ML players and the insanely inflated values given to top prospects on this site,in a satirical manner.
    The prospect values are like balloons,any little thing will will cause air to escape and their value to plummet.
    Case in point: Luis Urias was sporting a value of 54.7 as a member of the Padres and after being traded to the Brewers, that value has now plummeted to 23.2.Without playing a game!
    Yes, teams overvalue their top prospects like they never have before in today’s baseball and that should be accounted for, but the numbers here just don’t add up when you see things like that happen.
    Yes, John will say that adjustments occur because of FV values fluctuating and projections being adjusted,but that doesn’t explain Urias losing 50% of his value simply because he got traded.
    It does call into question the validity of the numbers assigned to these players.Should every prospect have his value reduced a similar percentage if he gets traded?
    What they are trying to do on this site is hard,very hard.Major league teams employ quite a few people and expend quite a bit of cash to come up with their own player rating software.Seeing as this site is obviously a work in progress we should cut them some slack but this is far from a perfect evaluation system as of right now.

    • Dave Sampsell

      Exactly ^^^^^ I am being a bit of a twat towards the guys who run this site, but the point I’m trying to make is this site does not risk adjust for the likelihood a prospect performs close to their perceived ceiling. Robles may end up being a star. Or he could end up being the nexxt coming of Albert Almora because he never fully adjusts to provide enough hard contact off his bat (I mean Almora literally put up better BA, OPS and OPS+ than Robles). Do I think Robles has a better shot to be great. I do. But he still comes with a ton of potential risk at this stage of his career. The idea that 5 years of Robles plus a throw in prospect remotely matches 8 years of the production of the Dodgers in this trade, however, is insanely low. This site does a very poor job of accounting for this risk.

      • John Bitzer

        Once again, the prospect valuations are based on the research from Fangraphs. Take it up with them if you think their research is wrong. Here’s a link for you: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation

        I’d advise that you read it.

        And once again, you are completely ignoring the financial components — which is ironic coming from a Cubs fan, because the reason the Cubs are in their predicament is because of the financial pressure from their owner.

        What you are really comparing here is the field value of each player — and yes, by that measure one package here far outstrips the other. But you can’t do that in a vacuum — those established players all cost a whole bunch of money.

        GMs like Dombrowski and Sabean have been fired for making that mistake, despite each winning the biggest trophies — and they’ve been replaced by younger executives who understand that it’s not that simple — you have to factor in cost efficiency.

    • John Bitzer

      Thanks for the feedback. Two points to respond to your questions: Prospect valuations are based on research from Fangraphs (and other similar studies): https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation/

      They are admittedly volatile. We are not prospect evaluators ourselves — we’re simply translating the numbers of the professional ratings services, so if they change their ratings, their numbers will change on our site. These ratings already incorporate the inherent risks. One key point is that top prospects have a much higher probability of both making the majors and being productive. Not all will succeed, of course, so you have to look at the ratings (and our numbers) as probablistic — the net present value of bust vs. success.

      To your question about Urias: we recognized after he was traded that there is a gap in the model, and that is that once a prospect graduates from prospect status, he is no longer rated as such. In effect, his last rating is frozen in time. This is a problem because if he were still being rated, that rating might have changed. Fangraphs still shows Jharel Cotton as a 55, for example, but that makes no sense anymore because he was let go by the A’s for $100K, so if they were still rating him as a prospect that likely would have changed downward. This matters because in our model, for players with small sample sizes at the MLB level, we blend their performance data with their last prospect rating based on a weighted average of service time, to get a sense of their upside if they don’t do well at first. But the point is that we can’t treat that last rating as sacrosanct, as we did with Urias, because it’s out of date — we have to make an educated guess as to how it might have changed if they were still rating him. And there’s a big gap between a 55 and a 50; hence the drop in that case.

  4. Dave Sampsell

    John – Who says “no” to this trade which your site says is an exact value match? Again, you have got to bring more balance to this site. I LOVE the idea of what you are trying to do. But you’ve got to find a way to mix in a lot more variables to make this really logical.

    Carter Kieboom and 6 years of control for Nolan Arenado (you have him at 7 years of control in your valuation), 2 years of Gray and 5 years of Dahl.

    If Arenado was locked up for seven years the Nats would be sending many multiple pieces back to Colorado for him, not the other way around as you suggest for Kieboom. Arenado is 28. He’s going to be 35 when his deal expires. DC would be getting what are considered his prime years. Yes, he’s expensive. That’s for a reason. The odds any single prospect approaches his production are always astronomically high.

    • John Bitzer

      See my response to your other comments. In short, I agree with your first point. The site is not set up yet to factor in individual team needs and budgets. For now, we’re letting the community of users weigh in on those, and it works well enough. We have plans to enhance the site in the future to build in those other factors.

      But once again, you’re significantly undervaluing the financial aspects, which are very real for front offices. We can agree to disagree on that point.

Submit a Comment