MLBTR on the Availability of Catchers

[JB_Iowa]

MLBTR ran a column on catchers who may possibly be available:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/07/jonathan-lucroy-catcher-trade-market.html

 

Ironic that Josmil Pinto is listed as a catcher in the minors.  No discussion of him and his problems.

 

Have at it.

[ashbury]

Twins should trade for Pinto, no question. I'm sure Rochester would listen to any offers.

[DaveW]

Hundley for Pinto and a PTBNL

[blairpaul715]

If the Twins are in it at the August trading deadline, I would go for a Pierzynski trade for offensive purposes with him being a lefty........Ideally i would like to trade for Lucroy, dont know right now what I would give up or what it would take.

[nytwinsfan]

We should have gone afer Susac when his numbers were reasonable a month and a half ago. Too late now.

[Thrylos]

 

Ironic that Josmil Pinto is listed as a catcher in the minors.  No discussion of him and his problems.

 

 

They are listing Avilas as available also... 

 

 

[DJSim22]

I'd go after one of the Rockies if the price is reasonable.  I suspect Lucroy is going to cost too much for my taste. 

 

The Twins are probably a few years away from legit conversation for a World Series crown, so I don't want to pay a lot this year. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

We should have gone afer Susac when his numbers were reasonable a month and a half ago. Too late now.

Why would the Giants trade a guy for a lowered price when he's struggling?

[jorgenswest]

We should have gone afer Susac when his numbers were reasonable a month and a half ago. Too late now.

Susac entered the season as a top 100 prospect at a premium position. The Giants have said they will reduce Posey's workload at catcher and did reduce it last year. They need him. I don't see how Susac's value could possibly have changed. The Giants are a smart team. They are not going to make decisions on the roller coaster of small monthly samples. He entered the season as a very valuable asset. That hasn't changed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Susac entered the season as a top 100 prospect at a premium position. The Giants have said they will reduce Posey's workload at catcher and did reduce it last year. They need him. I don't see how Susac's value could possibly have changed. The Giants are a smart team. They are not going to make decisions on the roller coaster of small monthly samples. He entered the season as a very valuable asset. That hasn't changed.

Yep, exactly.

 

Maybe the Twins should have given away Kyle Gibson after 2013 when they still could have gotten something for him.

 

And that Buxton kid, he looks rough.

 

Players are not the stock market. They don't value or devalue at a moment's notice or sometimes for no reason at all.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd go after one of the Rockies if the price is reasonable.  I suspect Lucroy is going to cost too much for my taste. 

 

The Twins are probably a few years away from legit conversation for a World Series crown, so I don't want to pay a lot this year.

 

I thought about this too but the home/road splits quickly scared me off.

[jorgenswest]

There is so much more information about the value of catchers now and somehow a guy like Suzuki who doesn't measure up well offensively or defensively ends up on teams that win a lot of games. Are the a Twins winning in spite of him? Maybe he contributes more than can be measured.

 

A veteran like A.J. who can be trusted with more games than Fryer/Herrmann might be the better direction. He will not be an expensive addition.

[drjim]

 

There is so much more information about the value of catchers now and somehow a guy like Suzuki who doesn't measure up well offensively or defensively ends up on teams that win a lot of games. Are the a Twins winning in spite of him? Maybe he contributes more than can be measured.

A veteran like A.J. who can be trusted with more games than Fryer/Herrmann might be the better direction. He will not be an expensive addition.

 

I'm quite confident that we haven't heard the last of adjustments for catcher defensive metrics.

[DaveW]

 

There is so much more information about the value of catchers now and somehow a guy like Suzuki who doesn't measure up well offensively or defensively ends up on teams that win a lot of games. Are the a Twins winning in spite of him? Maybe he contributes more than can be measured.

A veteran like A.J. who can be trusted with more games than Fryer/Herrmann might be the better direction. He will not be an expensive addition.

I kind of like the idea of bringing in A.J., Suzuki is still the "starter" but the split ends up closer to 60/40 then the 85/15 it currently is.

 

If Suzuki is in a funk/tired, then you have no issue running AJ out for 3-4 games in a row.

 

AJ has always hit RHP pretty damn well and still has some gas left in the tank, he also could make the bench deeper as well as a late inning PH against RHP if need be.

 

Best of all, the  price wouldn't be much at all IMO, maybe not as low as a PTBNL, but certainly someone the Twins likely wouldn't miss.

[DaveW]

 

 

There is so much more information about the value of catchers now and somehow a guy like Suzuki who doesn't measure up well offensively or defensively ends up on teams that win a lot of games. Are the a Twins winning in spite of him? Maybe he contributes more than can be measured.

A veteran like A.J. who can be trusted with more games than Fryer/Herrmann might be the better direction. He will not be an expensive addition.

I think Suzuki gets too much grief from fans (myself included), he has looked significantly better at the plate over the last week, so maybe that jump starts him a bit and the 4 days off allows him to rest up.

 

They still need a better back up option IMO, but Fryer has looked solid thus far (SSS for sure)

[Andrew]

We should have gone afer Susac when his numbers were reasonable a month and a half ago. Too late now.

I stand by this comment 100%

[Brock Beauchamp]

I know it's an extreme SSS and all but I have to admit I'm a little intrigued by Fryer right now. He's not a long-term solution in any way, shape, or form but he looked good enough in his first two games that I'd play him more often for the rest of July and see what happens.

 

It's not the perfect solution (or even a good solution, probably) but given the lack of catching options out there, it might not be horrible.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Why would the Giants trade a guy for a lowered price when he's struggling?

 

I'm assuming you are saying that Susac has a great enough track record as a prospect and the Giants were in enough need for a secondary/future catcher that his early season struggles were not enough to decrease his value anything more than a de minimis amount. You might be right about that.

 

But as a general proposition, of course players' trade value goes down marginally when they are struggling. How much depends on the circumstances of course. Buxton and Sano's value probably only took a minor hit early this year when they struggled because everyone knew it was injury/rust related. But when Hicks struggled early last year as a 24 year old, I bet his value dipped pretty significantly. Susac might not have fallen in the Hicks category, but I'd almost guarantee his value fell some, if only marginally.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

We should have gone afer Susac when his numbers were reasonable a month and a half ago. Too late now.

Sorry, but GMs aren't going to be as impatient as fans are in determining value.  Susac was a very high valued catcher going into the season, and a bad month from a rookie is hardly going to eliminate that value.  We certainly wouldn't have been able to pick up Susac on the cheap.  I'm not necessarily against acquiring him if he's available (and that right there is a very big IF), but understand that he was (and still is) going to be expensive. 

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Fryer and Suzuki as a platoon is not any worse than Salas/Laudner, yeah? Neither has Laudner's home run power, but that was a nice bonus in 87, rather than something the 2015 Twins need to count on. Fryer should play more often than Herrmann did, as I imagine Suzuki can only be more run down in the second half without getting more days off.

 

The trade rumors list doesn't really have an obvious solution - the long term guys are probably too expensive (in prospects), and the short term guys aren't that much of an upgrade...

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm assuming you are saying that Susac has a great enough track record as a prospect and the Giants were in enough need for a secondary/future catcher that his early season struggles were not enough to decrease his value anything more than a de minimis amount. You might be right about that.

He entered 2015 as a #80-100 prospect on a few lists. The Giants weren't going to move his value down any more than the Twins would have moved Hicks' value down after his first two disastrous months of 2013.

 

Think of baseball as a stock market where everybody is playing the long game and there is no short-term investment. People who invest in the long game don't buy or sell based on small, possibly random, flucuations in stock price. They stand firm and ride it out because they're looking anywhere from 2-5 years out (possibly even longer). What happens this month or next month is generally irrelevant.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Brock Beauchamp, on 13 Jul 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

 

 

He entered 2015 as a #80-100 prospect on a few lists. The Giants weren't going to move his value down any more than the Twins would have moved Hicks' value down after his first two disastrous months of 2013.

 

 

 

I think the Twins probaby moved Hicks' value down quite a bit at that point. You don't? You don't think it would have taken much more to get Hicks from the Twins before those two disastrous months? I sure do.

 

Think of baseball as a stock market where everybody is playing the long game and there is no short-term investment. People who invest in the long game don't buy or sell based on small, possibly random, flucuations in stock price. They stand firm and ride it out because they're looking anywhere from 2-5 years out (possibly even longer). What happens this month or next month is generally irrelevant.

I understand that baseball teams are (mostly) playing the long game. But just because you are playing the long game doesn't mean you don't consider short-term information. You just discount it because it is a small sample size. But it is still relevant information you should consider.

 

If you have two prospects that are exactly the same, and one is struggling for a month and a half and the other is playing well (not even great), and you have no other information, are you telling me you wouldn't take the latter? Of course you would, or you'd be a horrible GM.

 

Obviously, there are never two prospects that are exactly the same or about which you have no more information. That's not the point. The point is to isolate and demonstrate the concept that information, even small and deserving of little weight, changes a rational actor's valuation, even if only slightly on the margin. It may be that other information (e.g., Susac's swing looked better than ever and his low numbers appeared to have been driven by a low BABIP) could more than compensate for his struggles, but all else being equal, his struggles reduce his value relative to other prospects that are not struggling.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I understand that baseball teams are (mostly) playing the long game. But just because you are playing the long game doesn't mean you don't consider short-term information. You just discount it because it is a small sample size. But it is still relevant information you should consider.

 

If you have two prospects that are exactly the same, and one is struggling for a month and a half and the other is playing well (not even great), and you have no other information, are you telling me you wouldn't take the latter? Of course you would, or you'd be a horrible GM.

 

Obviously, there are never two prospects that are exactly the same or about which you have no more information. That's not the point. The point is to isolate and demonstrate the concept that information, even small and deserving of little weight, changes a rational actor's valuation, even if only slightly on the margin. It may be that other information (e.g., Susac's swing looked better than ever and his low numbers appeared to have been driven by a low BABIP) could more than compensate for his struggles, but all else being equal, his struggles reduce his value relative to other prospects that are not struggling.

Sure, but on the inverse the "sell low" team isn't going to sell when they believe a player is underperforming his skill level. They'll ride out the storm and hope the player normalizes in time.

 

For example, Lucroy. Would the Brewers have traded him for less in May when he had a 55 OPS+? Of course not, that'd be foolish. Was his "value" lower at that point? Yeah, maybe but it's irrelevant because the Brewers would have set his price at his expected level of performance, not his actual performance.

 

That's what I mean by "long game". When you're looking years out, what is happening today doesn't carry much weight.

[Vanimal46]

Sorry, but GMs aren't going to be as impatient as fans are in determining value. Susac was a very high valued catcher going into the season, and a bad month from a rookie is hardly going to eliminate that value. We certainly wouldn't have been able to pick up Susac on the cheap. I'm not necessarily against acquiring him if he's available (and that right there is a very big IF), but understand that he was (and still is) going to be expensive.

This post is just to play devil's advocate. Let's say for the sake of argument that the month and a half time line proposed by nytwinsfan is May 31st. At that time, Plouffe was batting .279/.352/.488 with 8 HR 29 RBI. Meanwhile Susac was batting .217/.333/.326 with 1 HR 3 RBI. The Giants wouldn't have picked up the phone and listened to that offer at the time?

 

Since then Susac has earned more playing time and seen success at the plate as well. Do you believe his price tag is still the same after his new found playing time and success?

[Brock Beauchamp]

This post is just to play devil's advocate. Let's say for the sake of argument that the month and a half time line proposed by nytwinsfan is May 31st. At that time, Plouffe was batting .279/.352/.488 with 8 HR 29 RBI. Meanwhile Susac was batting .217/.333/.326 with 1 HR 3 RBI. The Giants wouldn't have picked up the phone and listened to that offer at the time?

 

Since then Susac has earned more playing time and seen success at the plate as well. Do you believe his price tag is still the same after his new found playing time and success?

His value to the Giants is higher. Ryan wouldn't change his valuation much, if at all. All that happens is the pendulum swings to the other side of the negotiating table.

 

Also, this hypothetical ignores that this is a big reason why teams don't trade players in May. Sample sizes are small, teams are still figuring out their rosters, etc.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I understand that baseball teams are (mostly) playing the long game. But just because you are playing the long game doesn't mean you don't consider short-term information. You just discount it because it is a small sample size. But it is still relevant information you should consider.

I am sure the Giants GM considered the information, but I doubt they let it affect his trade valuation at all because it was an incredibly small sample.  Susac's season low OPS was on June 11, at which point he had 64 PAs and had only started 14 of 49 games.

[Vanimal46]

His value to the Giants is higher. Ryan wouldn't change his valuation much, if at all. All that happens is the pendulum swings to the other side of the negotiating table.

 

Also, this hypothetical ignores that this is a big reason why teams don't trade players in May. Sample sizes are small, teams are still figuring out their rosters, etc.

I get where you're coming from. And you agree Susac's value is higher now on the Giants. In theory that should drive up his price tag for other teams to acquire his talents compared to a month and a half ago. Which is nytwinsfan's point if I'm understanding his side of the discussion.

 

Back in May maybe Susac's value was a guy like Plouffe to get the deal done. Now that there's a little bit of success behind a young talented catcher, the price now could be Plouffe + a 10-15 ranked prospect. Either way I agree with nytwinsfan that it would have been easier to negotiate for that player a month and a half ago than it is today.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Since then Susac has earned more playing time and seen success at the plate as well. Do you believe his price tag is still the same after his new found playing time and success?

Based on what we know, I doubt Susac's value has changed since that time.  Given his track record and inexperience, the Giants likely projected him to his current performance, and his stat line in limited time, while not good, didn't invalidate that projection at all.  (They also probably expected he would have greater opportunities at some point.)

 

By the same token, so little time has passed since that point that Susac's value likely hasn't risen either, at least not enough to actually make a difference in trade considerations.

 

Would the trade value of Berrios change if he came up for a bullpen duty over 2 months and scuffled a bit?  And if he then joined the rotation for a month and held his own?  I am sure teams are always collecting more data on these players, but these time frames and variability of performances are just so slight as to not mean anything on the trade market. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I get where you're coming from. And you agree Susac's value is higher now on the Giants. In theory that should drive up his price tag for other teams to acquire his talents compared to a month and a half ago. Which is nytwinsfan's point if I'm understanding his side of the discussion.

 

Back in May maybe Susac's value was a guy like Plouffe to get the deal done. Now that there's a little bit of success behind a young talented catcher, the price now could be Plouffe + a 10-15 ranked prospect. Either way I agree with nytwinsfan that it would have been easier to negotiate for that player a month and a half ago than it is today.

And I disagree because there's a good chance the Giants say "call me back in six weeks" and hang up the phone.

 

It's mid-July and has there been a notable trade in MLB yet? There certainly wasn't one in May. Teams aren't in a rush to make changes even in June because there are so many roster variables in play.

[nytwinsfan]

 

Sure, but on the inverse the "sell low" team isn't going to sell when they believe a player is underperforming his skill level. They'll ride out the storm and hope the player normalizes in time.

For example, Lucroy. Would the Brewers have traded him for less in May when he had a 55 OPS+? Of course not, that'd be foolish. Was his "value" lower at that point? Yeah, maybe but it's irrelevant because the Brewers would have set his price at his expected level of performance, not his actual performance.

That's what I mean by "long game". When you're looking years out, what is happening today doesn't carry much weight.

Yeah, if they believe a player is underperforming his skill level. Big if. They certainly have other information that other teams might not. But it is also possible they have other information that suggests the struggles are more damning than other teams realize, not less. Again, "all else being equal." 

 

Expected level of performance is affected by actual performance, because actual performance is one of the best sources of predicting expected performance. Obviously the Brewers would not have traded Lucroy as if he were a 55+ OPS player, again because small sample sizes make you discount the actual performance. But, "all else being equal" it should have decreased his value for everyone.