What does your *perfect* Brian Dozier trade look like?

[jimmer]

 

According for Fangraphs (which is what I believe is typically used for surplus value) he had 4.7, 3.3, and 5.9 WAR the last three years which is an average of 4.63 WAR/year. Over two years that is worth $74.1M and after subtracting his salary it leaves $59.13M surplus value (which I called $60M for simplicity).

Yes, you're right. I compared Eaton and Dozier just a bit ago and I accidentally used Eaton's 3 year average instead of Doziers for the calculation.  But, again, it's assuming that production continues after 30.

 

And I thought I read 60-80M.  Barely below 60 isn't 60-80.  I'd buy 60 for rounding purposes, but 60-80 is a big window :-)

[twins_89]

 

Yes, you're right. I compared Eaton and Dozier just a bit ago and I accidentally used Eaton's 3 year average instead of Doziers for the calculation.  But, again, it's assuming that production continues after 30.

 

And I thought I read 60-80M.  Barely below 60 isn't 60-80.  I'd buy 60 for rounding purposes, but 60-80 is a big window :-)

 

I said $60-80M because for me $60M would be the low end for his production if you make the assumption that last year wasn't sustainable and he will regress to a more average level. The $80M is a high end estimate that is probably unrealistic, but captures what his value would be if he maintained last year's production over the remainder of his contract.  I feel fairly comfortable saying the Twins should shoot for a minimum of $60M surplus value in return for Dozier and that getting $70M value wouldn't be unreasonable. 

[jimmer]

 

I said $60-80M because for me $60M would be the low end for his production if you make the assumption that last year wasn't sustainable and he will regress to a more average level. The $80M is a high end estimate that is probably unrealistic, but captures what his value would be if he maintained last year's production over the remainder of his contract.  I feel fairly comfortable saying the Twins should shoot for a minimum of $60M surplus value in return for Dozier and that getting $70M value wouldn't be unreasonable. 

OK.

[darin617]

Perfect Dozier trade would have the Twins sending a player to be named later in the deal by the name of Joe Mauer.

[jimmer]

 

Perfect Dozier trade would have the Twins sending a player to be named later in the deal by the name of Joe Mauer.

nope.

[laloesch]

No on Bellinger.  Twins already have a plethora of 1b / DH types in Park, Vargas, Sano and possibly Kepler too.  I also think he's (Bellinger) being over inflated by the Dodgers organization when you start looking into his stats.  To me it's gotta be De Leon and Alvarez plus one more (Beuhler, Sheffield or Lux).    I know the Dodger would scoff at that but they are getting a top tier 2nd baseman and still keeping Urias.    

[AlwaysinModeration]

Dozier has averaged 4.3 WAR the last three years. If we assume that continues (and he's 30, I wouldn't), and we figure 8M per one WAR, that's 68.8M (8.6M times 8M). He gets paid 15M. That's 53 surplus.

When doing this calculation, you need to subtract 0.5 WAR per year in the players decline years. So 3.8 + 3.3 = 7WAR * $8million / WAR = $56mm, or $41mm.

 

Same thing when calculating Eaton's value, you aren't factoring his decline of 0.5WAR per season.

[jimmer]

 

When doing this calculation, you need to subtract 0.5 WAR per year in the players decline years. So 3.8 + 3.3 = 7WAR * $8million / WAR = $56mm, or $41mm.

Same thing when calculating Eaton's value, you aren't factoring his decline of 0.5WAR per season.

If you look at Eaton's calculation I made, you'll see I made it an average of 3.25 WAR across the board.  That more than accounts for the 0.5 decline per year. If anything I shorted Eaton a bit. I wrote:

 

'Eaton is younger, is going to get paid 38.4 M for the next 5 years.  Even if you assume he'll play CF EVERY year of the next 5 (which I highly doubt), you're probably looking at a 3-3.5 WAR play per year.  So if we say 8M per WAR, and you figure an average of 3.25 WAR for 5 years, that's 130M.  130M minus 39 equals 91M of surplus. About 30M more than Dozier.'

 

Dozier only has two years, it's negligible and not really worth arguing with people who don't really embrace WAR to being with :-)

[AlwaysinModeration]

If you look at Eaton's calculation I made, you'll see I made it an average of 3.25 WAR across the board. That more than accounts for the 0.5 decline per year. If anything I shorted Eaton a bit. I wrote:

 

'Eaton is younger, is going to get paid 38.4 M for the next 5 years. Even if you assume he'll play CF EVERY year of the next 5 (which I highly doubt), you're probably looking at a 3-3.5 WAR play per year. So if we say 8M per WAR, and you figure an average of 3.25 WAR for 5 years, that's 130M. 130M minus 39 equals 91M of surplus. About 30M more than Dozier.'

 

Dozier only has two years, it's negligible and not really worth arguing with people who don't really embrace WAR to being with :-)

You are right. On BBref, he has 3.1, 3.7, and 6 WAR seasons, an average of 4.3 WAR. If you start at 4.3 and decline to 2.3 in 2021, that's the same 16WAR you came up with.

 

I have seen the many arguments on TD that WAR isn't a useful stat. However, it's pretty well established that WAR and the price per WAR in millions match up extremely close to the dollars and years of free agent contracts. Since that is the case, it seems very important to pay attention to and understand the WAR stat.

[AlwaysinModeration]

However, if Eaton moves off of CF, he will lose value, because there is a positional adjustment (bonus, essentially), for playing an up-the-middle position like CF.

[Otto von Ballpark]

However, if Eaton moves off of CF, he will lose value, because there is a positional adjustment (bonus, essentially), for playing an up-the-middle position like CF.

CF to RF penalty is something like 9 runs, although he could make that up fairly easily by going from a below average CF to an above average RF (which he has shown some ability to do).

 

I know corner players are less desirable for good reason, but Eaton is an interesting case that seems to present multiple viable options to his club. And it sounds like the Nats plan to take advantage, using him in CF in 2017 and then shifting him to RF the following year after Werth's contract is up.

[jimmer]

However, if Eaton moves off of CF, he will lose value, because there is a positional adjustment (bonus, essentially), for playing an up-the-middle position like CF.

I believe it will be the other way around because if he moves from CF to RF, what he loses in offense, he'll make up more, and then some, by going from a below average defensive CF to an excellent defensive RF. This was discuessed at Fangraphs in regards to Eaton. Also, look at his WAR in 2015 and then this year. His offense was practically identical in both years, but he played RF this year and CF last year. The defensive boost raised his WAR.