drivlikejehu

I don't have anything handy but was thinking about research related to MLB players, not prospects. That aspect was conjectural on my part. I do think it's safe to say that an organization knows more about its own players than other organizations do. The hard part is quantifying the impact as it relates to trade valuations. My basically unsupported gut feeling is that the discount should be pretty steep, especially with minor league pitchers and a team as sophisticated as the Dodgers. There is no question their trade proposals are based on a highly analytical evaluation of future value. The basic goal in any prospect(s)-for-veteran(s) trade, for the prospect-dealing club, is to leverage a delta between the perceived and actual future value of the prospects.

I used the 2015 version of your source #1, so that's why my index numbers were lower. But the actual prospect value in a trade is complicated by the information asymmetry, because the prospect value chart is derived mostly from prospects that stayed in their organization. To put it another way, there are historical "top 100" prospects as a group, and then top 100 prospects that were traded as a sub-group. I don't know how much specific data/analysis is out there, but trades of MLB players show clearly that traded players under-perform relative to those that stay in an organization. Their pre-trade organization is better able to predict future value, and understandably more likely to part ways with players they are pessimistic about (at least relative to league-wide expectations). If the Dodgers truly believed in De Leon as a top-of-rotation starter, he wouldn't be on the table for Dozier. So for either health or ability reasons, the Dodgers feel he is a trade-able asset. The Twins valuation has to account for this information, and discount De Leon accordingly in comparison to his perceived prospect status. I imagine this is why the trade hasn't happened. If I'm the Twins, I wouldn't insist on De Leon being in the deal. If the Dodgers are claiming he's so incredibly valuable, I just don't see how the gap can be closed. The Twins simply can't accept that at face value. So either the Dodgers can say all of their prospects are hugely valuable, which is not credible and means they just want to fleece the Twins, or they can put together a package with more depth that isn't quite as MLB-ready. That still would be fine for the Twins if the value is there.

Dozier could easily produce $50 million in surplus value (vs. free agent rates) during the next 2 seasons. He produced $43 million last year alone, albeit likely in a career year and with a salary that will go up a bit. By comparison, a #25-50 MLB prospect is worth around $20 million. Top 10 prospects are worth 40-50 (pitchers a little less due to higher injury risk). #50-100 prospects are worth around $10 million. Of course, prospect rankings are highly subjective and the above numbers are just general guidelines anyway. But I think it helps illuminate why even at the front office level, opinions of a fair deal could vary widely. Valuations of De Leon are particularly challenging; if I'm the Twins, his shoulder situation worries me, plus the mere fact the Dodgers may be willing to move him makes me wonder how much value they actually attach to him (and of course teams know their own players best). I think it's very reasonable to think a fair valuation for De Leon is around $25 million. Though the Dodgers paid a ton for Alvarez, his actual prospect status justifies less of a valuation than was paid . . . say $15 million. That leaves the Dodgers short $10 million, which is a Sheffield or Stewart level guy. I might be OK with an 80% return except for one thing - the information asymmetry noted above. Dozier is a known quantity, more or less - certainly the Dodgers would have a pretty good idea what they are getting. The Twins would be exposed to way more risk in taking on minor league pitchers. I'd rather take an even bigger haircut on the Dozier return than be a front office that accepts inferior returns + higher risk in deals.

I'm really not that blown away with the prospects being discussed in general . . . I think the Twins are correct to want several of them. The urgency to trade Dozier decreases if the current offer isn't very good, because new needs always crop up during the season. Players underachieve, get hurt, etc.

I have vague but fond memories of Butch Huskey. I was a rather young baseball fan when he spent a couple of years in nearby Norfolk, Virginia. In 1995 he was the power attraction on a team known for its pitching, with the 'Generation K' of Isringhausen, Wilson, and Pulsipher seemingly poised to take the league by storm. Carl Everett, Alex Ochoa, Paul Byrd, and Jay Payton were also on that club.

Why was the other thread locked just to start an identical one? I don't get it. Nothing has happened. I haven't commented in this but whether it's true or not, the underlying info is the same as the OP, sans the incorrect timeline.

Suzuki had a WAR of 0.6 in 2016, and that doesn't include his bad pitch framing but does include his 'strengths,' such as they are. The year before he was below replacement level, again not even factoring in his lack of pitch framing. He is really, really bad - arguably a below replacement level projection for 2017 and beyond. Castro is not the greatest or anything, but I'm hoping the Twins adopt a fairly straightforward platoon arrangement so that he doesn't face too many lefties. After a little AAA time, hopefully Garver can be effective as a platoon mate. Between the two of them, they could easily have above-average offensive production for the position along with solid run prevention. Garver (or Murphy) of course will be making the minimum or close to it for the next few years, so if that approach panned out, it would be a bargain overall.

Let's not cry too hard, life still seems pretty good for Plouffe overall. Hopefully he can bounce back from the injuries and get in a few more productive seasons.

In a full season, Simmons is worth 3-4 WAR (injuries have cut into his playing time a bit in the past 2 years - but just talking skill set here). That's good for 5-10 range across MLB at the position. In other words, a well above-average starting player. However, Simmons is a far better hitter than Vielma. The stronger comparison is with John McDonald, who played 14 seasons due to his defensive wizardry - but always in a part time role. His career WAR total was 0.7. I hope Vielma can improve to the point where he can provide a little more offense as part of a super-utility role. The 'analytical world' has most definitely not made hitter strikeouts more frowned upon. The exact opposite is true. However, at a certain point they become a symptom of a larger problem.

Falvey and Levine are still working with the same evaluators that were in place before. So this tells us that the Twins organization did not see an MLB future for Walker, even before the management shuffle. A change in scenery is good for Walker . . . his current approach made it impossible to contribute in the Majors. Maybe another org can get him to make some adjustments. His upside is still limited to RH bat off the bench and backup LF/1B, but that's better than being a career AAA guy.

Cameron had 4 seasons above 5 WAR and 7 above 4. He was underrated during his career because the value of his defense wasn't recognized to the extent it would be today. Very, very few players achieve that kind of success. No, it's not superstar-level, but there's a reason superstars are rare - even among the players who are hyped as such prior to reaching MLB. Sickel's projection is actually optimistic, in the sense that Buxton's struggles at the plate revealed his potential downside and we really have no idea how it will play out.

I wouldn't be shocked if the Dodgers would trade De Leon for Dozier straight up. I'm not sure that De Leon's ceiling is all that great, plus he had some shoulder inflammation this past season. At 24 there's probably not much room for improvement. The Dodgers signed Cuban Hector Olivera for $62.5MM and traded him a few months later, so I don't know that their other Cuban signings would be off the table . . . the whole point of overpaying for prospects is to build depth. I'd ask for Alvarez, Sheffield or Lux, and Barnes as a throw-in, and even that would make me a little nervous because the Twins could easily wind up with zero to show for the trade. Getting De Leon would be much different in the sense that he would go straight into the MLB rotation, but I have no idea how highly the Dodgers actually value him.

I don't have a problem with the Twins retaining Antony, at least for the time being. Access to his institutional knowledge can make it easier for Falvey and Levine to change things. In a year or two, Antony will either carve out a role that Falvey and Levine think he's suited for, or he'll move on. At this point I'm more curious about what they do for scouting & player personnel positions, and so far as bringing in analytical resources.

Well right, though a rebuilding team may value improved production in future years if that is a benefit of playing someone else instead of Mauer in the present.

You keep saying this but it isn't accurate. Mauer's WAR $ value is an abstract concept that has zero connection to the Twins' payroll costs (and, by extension, P&L). The "value" of Mauer's production is an on-field baseball quantity that is very loosely related to the overall business of the team. The business of the team is best served by winning. So winning more by letting Mauer go is an obviously correct move, if possible, because the Twins win more by having a greater overall level of on-field production. Whether Mauer is "worth" $10 million, $15 million, or some other amount is completely meaningless from a business standpoint.

Obviously you have certain situations where an out can be 'productive,' but the basic purpose of batting is not to get out. Now, once you get into different kinds of outs, there is some variation - advancing a runner beats a K, a K beats a double play, etc. But you also should be mindful of the fact that hitters are limited in their ability to really control a lot of those things. Even with a sac fly, a lot depends on the characteristics of the pitcher, the loft the hitter's swing produces, etc.

It's simple: don't get out.

Businesses need customers. The Twins do benefit from some MLB-wide earnings but they certainly rely heavily on ticket sales, radio & TV revenue, etc. due to Twins fans specifically. So you individually, and Twins fans collectively, are inseparable from the business of Twins baseball.

For capital assets, yes, depreciation is often mandatory for financial accounting and tax purposes. States follow federal tax depreciation rules for the most part, save sometimes for bonus depreciation. For the portion of Target Field that the Twins paid for, for instance, they would depreciate the structure over 39 years for tax, concessions equipment over 5 years, and so on. But teams do not treat players like capital assets, even though baseball contracts do have some characteristics of a capital investment. They treat payroll like . . . payroll. I don't know how else they could really do it, since it would be a pro forma method of accounting that they couldn't use for anything other than internal decision-making. Major Leauge Ready, on 02 Nov 2016 - 9:59 PM, said: A simple google search contradicts you because you misunderstand "return." A sunk cost is one that has been incurred and cannot be recovered. The financial commitment to a player cannot be recovered financially - on-field production is irrelevant from that standpoint, though of course a team will want to keep productive players.

Any decently-run business understands the concept of sunk costs. Companies cut investments loose all the time. So the idea that it's unrealistic to make decisions based on future returns, rather than past commitments, is just factually incorrect. I'd love some real world examples that show otherwise - that companies decided they had to stick with a sunk cost rather than move on to something with more future potential. SEC filers have to disclose a lot of their major decisions, so if it happens with regularity then there should be huge numbers of examples that can be shown. One area where some fans are unrealistic is the matter of annual player budgets - for instance, suggesting that a lower budget in one year should essentially allow for the 'savings' to be allocated to another year. Businesses don't treat operating expenses that way and so its no surprise baseball teams don't.

Seems like Klaw is ripping clubs for not hiring candidates that don't exist. It would be nice if they did exist, but reality is what it is. And the number of front office jobs in baseball is very small to begin with, even with more positions being created in recent years.

Well, Heyward is legitimately very good on defense, so I'm not sure how WAR is "wrong" to incorporate his defensive stats. Turns out that corner OF defense is actually pretty important.

Definitely would appear to be a strong hire, if accurate. Considering Levine is already the #2 in Texas, I assume it confirms that the Twins' GM will have a lot of day-to-day decision-making responsibility, making it a real promotion even though his place in the org hierarchy will stay the same.

The Gonsalves thing seems like a straightforward factual question, since pitches get charted throughout the year. What is his actual in-game velocity? If it's really 87-91 at best, then his prospect status is dramatically overstated because only a tiny number of pitchers succeed with that kind of fastball. Seth and others on here have claimed he throws "low 90s" which is an entirely different story . . . lots of successful starters average 91.

It's one thing to continually and obnoxiously shill for Walker, but you intentionally ignore facts that greatly limit potential comparisons. Most players doing well are promoted before they can rack up huge numbers at a single level. Walker's talent for numbers is actually just a talent for avoiding promotion. But here's a fun comp: Tyler Moore of the Nationals. Led the Carolina League in HR, RBI, and total bases in 2010. Led the Eastern League in HR, RBI, and total bases in 2011 (31 homers both years, total of over 200 RBIs between both years). He was dominating the International League in 2012 and on track to again lead those categories, but as a result was called up to the Nationals. He does have 650 PAs but has been below replacement level, despite vastly lower minor league strikeout rates than Walker. In reality, there have actually been a ton of players that consistently racked up huge minor league numbers but did nothing in the Majors. Of course you can look at Walker's stats and play silly games by picking certain combinations of categories and things like that, but there's a reason the Twins haven't promoted him, he can't hit and never will.