On Trading Caleb Thielbar and 70s Game Shows

[Riverbrian]

13 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The Yankees have reached the playoffs 8 of the last 11 years. Winning Record 31 seasons in a row. Guess they're just better at finding future value than Oakland.

Based on that... yes they are. 

[DJL44]

1 minute ago, Riverbrian said:

Based on that... yes they are. 

So, now you're defining "value" as running a payroll above the luxury tax to get the most talent as possible each season? That just re-defines "value" as "wins".

[Riverbrian]

15 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

So, now you're defining "value" as running a payroll above the luxury tax to get the most talent as possible each season? That just re-defines "value" as "wins".

I didn't mention "A's" Yankees" "Luxury Tax" "World Series" or "Future Value" in the post that started this exchange. 

What I said was: 

The goal of every front office is to increase value.  

If the front office can increase the value of it's players... the wins will follow.  

The rest you are adding on your own. 

If you want to win a trade... Increase the value of the players you acquire. 

If you want to get the most for a trade. Trade players whose value has been increased. 

Players that are playing well increase in value. If you are playing well... you will win games. 

Therefore... The goal of every front office is too increase the value of their players. 

If you want to win trades... Increase the value of the players that you acquire. 

Increasing the value of your players provides bigger return in the trades that you do make. 

If players are playing well... they increase in value. If players are playing well... you win more games. 

If you are trying to trip me up... You gotta do better. 😄 

 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

t's actually Riverbrian's argument, not mine.

Not my argument either. 😉

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

It's actually Riverbrian's argument, not mine.

 

No, it was your argument when you stated that by my logic we should have traded Polanco at his peak value.  That assumes that every player should be traded at peak value regardless of a host of other considerations, starting if the team can replace that player as Tampa did when they traded Adames.  Of course, the relative likelihood of actually contending comes into play and   DJL44 pointed out a number of other considerations.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

If you want to win a trade... Increase the value of the players you acquire. 

It's really easy to give away the best player in a trade and get better "value" in return. Value is performance/cost. The Yankees pay for performance, they aren't looking strictly for value. There is no "wins per dollar" pennant, just one for the most wins.

[Major League Ready]

24 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

It's really easy to give away the best player in a trade and get better "value" in return. Value is performance/cost. The Yankees pay for performance, they aren't looking strictly for value. There is no "wins per dollar" pennant, just one for the most wins.

I see the no "wins per dollar" statement here fairly often.  The problem with taking that stance is that it's literally impossible for a team like the Twins / Guardians to produce more wins than the top tier revenue teams unless they dramatically outperform those teams in terms of wins per dollar spent.  Wins added per dollar spent is one of the more meaningful metrics for teams in the bottom half of spending.

[Mike Sixel]

Are people still discussing if they should trade a decent RP for not much, because of value?  Because I thought that was the point, which makes little sense to me. Odds of getting anything if value for him are very low, but he holds certain present value. 

As for the polanco example, it would be foolish to trade a great, cost controlled player while your team is good. That's literally the guy you are trying to trade for...

[DJL44]

6 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I see the no "wins per dollar" statement here fairly often.  The problem with taking that stance is that it's literally impossible for a team like the Twins / Guardians to produce more wins than the top tier revenue teams unless they dramatically outperform those teams in terms of wins per dollar spent.  Wins added per dollar spent is one of the more meaningful metrics for teams in the bottom half of spending.

But you don't intentionally turn a 90 win team into an 83 win team in order to improve your wins-per-dollar. The Twins have a budget but they should still be looking to maximize wins based on their budget, not trying to save $20M if it means giving up a chance at a pennant.

[Riverbrian]

58 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

It's really easy to give away the best player in a trade and get better "value" in return. Value is performance/cost. The Yankees pay for performance, they aren't looking strictly for value. There is no "wins per dollar" pennant, just one for the most wins.

I never said that the Yankees are looking "strictly" for value. You are making my statements black and white with no middle ground. 

You are pointing out the middle ground when you say " they aren't looking strictly for value" 

I agree with that. Please offer me the same middle ground that you are awarding to yourself. 

I understand that the Yankees sign free agents and I understand that any time you sign a free agent... value is rarely the reason because in order to sign the free agent, you have out spent where other teams value that player in order to sign him. Once you do that that player has negative value to other teams. 

My point is simple yet, it is being unnecessarily complicated.

A front office has to increase value of their players. Yankees included despite the millions of dollars that they spend in free agency.  

Yes... The Yankees are paying Stanton a boat load of money. But they had to offer value to Marlins to acquire him and that value was value that they increased to the point of satisfying the Marlins. 

The Yankees had to develop the value of players sent to the Cubs to acquire Rizzo. If those players don't develop sufficient value... they don't get Rizzo for those players. 

The Yankees had to develop the value of players sent to the Pirates in order to acquire Clay Holmes. After they acquired Clay... They developed him into something better and have no increased his value to the point where they might be get more value then they sent to the Pirates. They don't have to cash in but they increased that value.    

They increased the Value of Aaron Judge and Severino and are keeping that value to themselves.

They have increased the value of Volpe, Peraza and the Martian (Jasson Dominquez) to the point that they can now trade those assets and acquire an incredible player in return. Which is a very Yankees thing to do since 17 players on their current 40 man were acquired via trade. 14 players are homegrown. 7 were acquired via free agency. You can't acquire 17 players via trade unless you have value to send back. 

And in conclusion... I believe we shouldn't trade Thielbar because he has more value to us then what we would get in return. 

I stand by my statement that the goal of every front office is to increase the value of their players and if you are successful in doing so... the wins will follow. 

 

[Major League Ready]

40 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

But you don't intentionally turn a 90 win team into an 83 win team in order to improve your wins-per-dollar. The Twins have a budget but they should still be looking to maximize wins based on their budget, not trying to save $20M if it means giving up a chance at a pennant.

Of course not.  We just need to understand that any type of sustained success is literally dependent upon producing more wins per dollar spent as compared to top revenue teams.  The point is there is often disregard here for the need to produce per dollar spent when in fact it's not possible to be successful without producing more per dollar spent.   That's why other leagues have salary caps.  

[old nurse]

7 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

It goes without saying that the current year chances of winning are not enhanced by a trade for “future value”.   However, there are endless examples of trades for future value that made future teams into playoff teams.

Dansby Swanson was the highest WAR player for Atlanta last year.

How about last year’s Cleveland team.  5 of Cleveland’s top 7 position players were acquired by trading established players for prospects.  Gimenez produced 6 fWAR.  They also had 4 pitchers that produced more than 2 WAR, and two of them were “future value” trades.   Those players will have an impact on 4-6 years of contending.

The 2019 Oakland team is another example.  3 of the top 5 position players were acquired as prospects or unproven players.  On the pitching side, Bassit and Montas were acquired as MLB ready prospects.  They had less than 30IP at the MLB level.  I don’t know how to categorize Hendricks.  He was never all that good until 2019.

Trading for prospects has been instrumental in building many good teams.  

Yup, Cleveland did well in trades. The kicker is that to get many of those players they gave up Lindor,, Carrasco, Kluber and Clevinger. All world player, once an ACE pitcher, Ace pitcher at the time of the trade, Ace pitcher at the time of the trade. I do believe they got squat for Bauer. Now it was good timing on the pitchers, but one never knows. Notice that none of the players traded were 2B. They were all higher value positions.than a 2B or a relief pitcher

[Tyler from Oregon]

We have to stop focusing more on future value than on maximizing the talent we have right now. Thielbar is a legitimately good reliever and we need all of the help that we can get in that space, now and forever.

[Hans Birkeland]

You got to know what's coming up behind any player you trade. With Polanco, we have four top prospects who all profile at 2nd base (Lee is more of a 3b but still). After 2021 we had Arraez also as a 2b. 

It's tricky and you can make the right value play and still have everything go wrong. The Twins won the Arraez trade but if PabLo gets hurt and Arraez hits .315 again we're viewing it differently.

Thielbar's metrics are so good he should command roughly the kind of value the Orioles got back for Jorge López (Cade Povich is a very good prospect and some are putting him in the top 100). But probably at the deadline and only if the reinforcements, Moran, Alcala and maybe one of the long relievers, look good.

You can do rebuilds or you can make trades that hurt emotionally. Unless you're Steve Cohen, you can't pick neither.

[MTV]

There’s one key element in trading a player at the right time that you skipped over: who’s going to replace said player once they’re gone. Sure, you could trade for a younger player of similar talent/position, but usually you only trade a player when you know you’ll get better production out of the newcomers, or the replacements. You wouldn’t trade Byron Buxton after a great campaign unless you have a legitimate center fielder as a backup/in AAA, or there’s a serious Center Fielder that would be worth acquiring.
 

Trading away Caleb Thielbar wouldn’t make sense because you A) don’t have a lefty reliever high enough in the wings or at the same quality of Thielbar to replaces his values as a lefty/high-end reliever immediately and B) you won’t really find a younger/more controllable lefty reliever that you could get for only trading Thielbar instead of in a package deal.
 

This is why I think our most tradable piece is Jorge Polanco, but at the deadline instead of 2021. Polanco has shown that his offense is legit and seems capable of returning to peak form once his IL stint ends. I don’t doubt his value will return, and Polanco could be the main piece in a trade that finally snags the Twins a bonafide Ace for the rotation. As for replacing him, there are endless possibilities: at the majors, a platoon of Nick Gordon/Donovan Solano will do nicely for the time being, and in the minors, ho boy are there options: Royce Lewis, Brooks Lee, Edouard Julien, Austin Martin, not to mention several shortstop prospects that are still in the lower minors that could end up as second basemen in the future; Point being, Second Base isn’t a hard position to fill, and the Twins sure do have enough depth to supplement the keystone. If the Twins play this right, they could have a serious playoff-bound roster with an Ace leading them down the stretch. 

[h2oface]

It is quite bold, and I feel, disrespectful to Arraez to assume he is currently at peak value. His future could take the peak a hell of a lot higher. You have no idea. Nobody does. 

As far as Theilbar is concerned, my bet is we have seen the last of his good year. Year, not years. And the decline will be severe and swift. The smoke is clearing, and the mirrors have broken. Just a gut feeling, not a hope. I bet you wouldn't get much for him, anyway, at his current "peak value". I think @jimbo92107  is right. This is the only team he will succeed on. I hope he has one more year, and has a way better start of the year than last.

[h2oface]

21 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

.........The goal of every front office needs to be maximizing value. By doing so... it leads to winning games. 

I would hope that was reversed. The goal of every front office needs to be winning games, including being the last team standing in the World Series and winning the very last game of each season. By doing so....... it leads to maximizing value. 

The goal is the endgame, not the process.

 

[Riverbrian]

47 minutes ago, h2oface said:

I would hope that was reversed. The goal of every front office needs to be winning games, including being the last team standing in the World Series and winning the very last game of each season. By doing so....... it leads to maximizing value. 

The goal is the endgame, not the process.

 

OK

I the front office declare thee goal... winning games.

That should take care of it. 😄

[Trov]

You analogy to the Monte Hall problem is flawed.  The Monte Hall problem is based on 1 door having a prize, and the other 2 doors having nothing.  There is no in between.  What you are talking about is selling off players for the chance the return will keep your team going, like the Rays do.  I do agree with the general concept and would much rather trade a guy a year or two early than late. 

Another flaw the comparison to the Monte Hall problem is you get to pick of 1 of 3 doors.  Knowing 1 has a prize.  The show opens one door to show you a nothing prize.  Then offers the change.  To be a fare comparison, you have to pick from three options, then know one option was terrible and then decide if the option of trading now is better than riding with the player you have.  In the case of choosing to trade a player now or not, you are not shown one of your options was bad.  You only have 2 options, keep or trade.  However, again, unlike in the Monte Hall problem, both options could be equal.  It is possible they both are terrible, or both pay off.  You could trade the player and he does great, but so does the player you go.  

However, unlike in the Monte Hall problem, there is an in between a prize or nothing.  You suggest trading Thielbar will be the best player to trade now, and we missed out on trading Polanco before.  First, Polanco for all the reasons you suggest he had high value in trade is all the reasons the Twins would have wanted to keep him.  Yes, he got hurt and now his trade value is nothing, or next to nothing.  However, at the time we were looking to compete, and would have had to replace him with something, as shown when he was hurt we did not have much there, because of other injuries as well.  Also, if we would have traded him could we have got a prospect sure, but then we either would have needed to flip them for other holes or we would have used the prospects we used in trades to fill the hole not having Polanco. Each move affects the next.  

In terms of Thielbar, he may be at his peak, but he is still just a mid inning relief guy.  He is unlikely to net huge return.  Will the return we get for him be better than the what he would give us, versus who we replace him with?  I get the point of trading guys at peak, as I said I am for it, but you need to also know you have someone to step in at similar level of production, else you are always building for future.